TheRPGSite

Couple of notes on this video I found:
- Actual video name is clickbait, but the video itself makes good points.
- I don't like these guys much, but the video itself makes good points.
- The video is about video games rather than tabletop, but it really works for both.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQg9oJ7paS8

What do you folks think?

I don't know about video games (though Deus Ex and Red Faction and Half-life and Project Eden all pop immediately to mind as scifi games I've played)... but for RPGs I think part of it is that they're perceived as being harder to run... that you'd have to be something of an expert on many subjects to pull it off.
Something I've seen many times in modern and futuristic games is Players who want to argue about how the GM or the game setting is 'getting it wrong'. As soon as there is a claim to a game being set in anything like the real world, with real physics... the bean counters come out of the woodwork.
I saw it with Shadowrun, Traveller, Cyberpunk, All Flesh Must Be Eaten, Cthulhu Now, Delta Green and even Dark Heresy.
Game sessions brought to a screeching halt because Joe needs to tell us all about how Shadowrun got their telecommuncations wrong (Joe should know, he spent a month doing tech support for Comcast...).
Sure, 'don't play with assholes' usually takes care of that... but Joe was just fine through the previous six month campaign of Earthdawn and the side game of 4e D&D.

A Traveller game I was in recently kept stalling as the various players found elements of the GM's presentation grating on their own knowledge of space stuff and military tactics.

Not that there are no such jerks in fantasy, but generally you can just handwave a lot of those contentious details... unless you've got a Player in the group who is a hard-core 4H alumnus who wants to pester you about crop yields vs. population densities in your fantasy city. Things don't have to conform to modern scientific knowledge nearly as much to satisfy nerdy Players.

I lasted all of 52 seconds before it became clear that the video is the work of a complete fucktard. The only people who think Star Trek is "true science fiction" and Star Wars isn't are disgruntled Trekkies who have been sore since 1977 when their pet sci-fi franchise was surpassed in popularity. So they make up some horseshit silver lining that Star Wars isn't "really" sci-fi, and therefore Star Trek is supreme once again or something. It's like Colts fans being all cunty and crying about how the reason the Patriots have habitually kicked the Colts' asses is because of deflated footballs -as if that somehow means the Pats' championships don't really count.

Both franchises feature telekinesis, telepathy, FTL travel and communications. Star Wars has ghosts for favorite dead characters, and Star Trek has reincarnation. The main difference is that in Star Trek, they throw the word quantum around like Rip Taylor flings confetti (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebiT8mlCvZY), to dupe scientifically illiterate types into thinking there's REAL SCIENCE going on as they fill up time giving a bullshit explanation as to why a piece of machinery works (or doesn't work). In Star Wars, they don't waste time/bore the audience with explanations about why something works (or not), they simply show it working or not working, and then get on to the next action sequence or dramatic revelation.

Imagine this kind of thinking being applied to any other genre. For example, a gangster movie like The Godfather. Only a pedantic bore is going to go into detail about the inner workings of Clemenza's shotgun, or the elevator bringing Victor Stracci to the floor where Clemenza is going to blow him away. The devices are there and they either work or don't work as desired for the plot.

I can't wait for this marvel of intellect to post his next video about how Roy Rogers movies are "real westerns" and Gene Autry movies aren't

I think he made it pretty clear that he was using 'looser' definitions.
He used Star Trek and Star Wars because most people are familiar with those... and I don't think he was wrong in drawing the distinction that Star Wars at least makes some attempt to explain things, or imply that there is an explanation... whereas Star Wars does no such thing (and fell flat when it tried with the lame Midichlorians retcon).

Much much easier to get someone on the same page with fiction drawn from the past than from the future. If you're just consuming media then it doesn't matter if the audience is on the same page but for gaming it does.

The difference is between Science Fiction and Science Fantasy is actually how much detail that's given to the technology.  Science Fiction likes to explain why things work the way they do.

Science Fantasy simply accepts them as part and parcel of the setting, and never bothers explaining.

As for why Science Fiction isn't as popular, it's actually much simpler:

The usual power fantasy of being able to make a difference is easier in a Fantastic setting.  There are no real cohesive overarching social and financial aspects that dominate everything.  A single (or small group of) person can 'make a difference' and feel like their existence means something.  There's also a lot more personal freedom, where you can explore the unknown places.

Unfortunately, in Science Fiction which is closer to the real world, certain factors get in the way of making some real change.  Things like politics, money, social pressures, information dissemination, human apathy, all of which gets in the way of the adventuring life and the personal sense of freedom that one gets in Fantasy.

And Elfdart, as a Star Wars fanboy, I say that Star Trek The Next Gen IS Science Fiction.  Not the silly 'Hard' Science Fiction that a lot of people LOVE to use as a weapon against it, but Star Trek uses science to suppose things and tries to explain why and how their world works.

Sounds to me like someone who doesn't know there is hard scifi and soft scifi. And mistakes it for science fiction and science fantasy. And then gives a wrong example by mentioning Star Wars and Trek who are both soft scifi.

What actually gives me more pause than the tech is the culture. It's pretty easy to have a fantasy culture that looks basically like historical ones since magic can be hidden away in the dark corners of the world, but you can't do that with sci-fi the tech is front and central and thinking about how that would shape culture over hundreds or thousands of years gives me more headaches and would be harder for me to hand wave than the tech itself.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;880725The usual power fantasy of being able to make a difference is easier in a Fantastic setting.  There are no real cohesive overarching social and financial aspects that dominate everything.

That seems like a fairly large assumption. Even the generic Pathfinder game I play every week has 'overarching social and financial aspects'... our PCs are consistently reminded we're small fish in a big pond.
I do think there's something about the appeal of power fantasy though... on a personal level rather than just the external acquisition of better equipment and contacts. But not all fantasy games feature huge personal advancements either.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;880710What do you folks think?

Can't use YT here, and the question has been answered already, I think. In spite of that, I'd remind about "money" factor. I get the feeling that true work of love is rarer nowadays than it was in the past.

Productions, be it games (in a broad sense), movies, books settle for "safe bets" rather than risk venturing into the lands unknown. Therefore we're flooded with cloned stuff that's supposed to be digestible by as broad auditorium as possible, and thus assure some money, rather than products well supported by serious research and with a strong dose of realism relevant to tastes of a very thin, niche group of potential customers.

BTW, there's a more or less "hard" SF RPG titled Blue Planet. I recall a few people complaining that they skipped the game, because the initial description of space travel (and its conditions) was too much for them.

It's far easier to say bye-bye to "hard" aspect and become a laser katana wielding samurai-sorcerer who doesn't have to deal with the possibility of shitting your lungs out during a space flight. ;]

Well... I skipped Blue Planet because playing a sentient dolphin has zero appeal to me.*

But sure: it was their depiction of space travel I couldn't grok.




















* Now that I think about it: I've never liked any game that even hinted at sentient dolphins in the main book. Rifts and Traveller squeak by on technicalities (the Dolphins are hidden away in niche products. Rifts in... what was it? The seventh worldbook and Traveller (at least MongTrav) stashed them away in the late stage Solomani Facebook (er... fifth in the race series, more or less?)...

So, yeah: its a thing.

Straight up Sci-Fi RPGs are more prevalent than Science-Fantasy ones. In fact I can think of very few Science-Fantasy RPGs.

Universe, Albedo and Star Frontiers are my favorites of the Hard end of the SF scale. Metamorphosis Alpha and Buck Rogers are somewhere after that with MA marginally near the middle.

I can think of very few RPGs that are Science-Fantasy that arent just mergers of D&D+Space.  So at the other end of the spectrum you have games like Trinity, Scraypers or Rifts: Phase World, 40k.

None of these examples include media based RPGs like Star Wars and so on.

That is my take on it. Other people have wildly varying ideas on what is and isnt SF. Some can and will slap FANTASY!!! On anything with aliens, FTL, or psionics. And that includes 2001 of all things. Luckily these nuts are few and far between. More oft people will draw the line at Psi powers or super-Science that function like magic unless its function is very defined.

TSR was actually surprised and confused at the negative reaction to the introduction of psionics to Star Frontiers. Players liked the near Hard Fiction setting and didnt want "magic" muddying it up. But then Zebs Guide messes up so much that its just one of several problems.

Ran into the same thing when working on Albedo. Players loved the really hard fiction setting and no one wanted to see the psi powers. So I left it out. That was easy as it was both very rare and did effectively one thing. Effectively a Functional Invisibility by editing themselves out of perception.

YMMV of course.

Quote from: Simlasa;880741That seems like a fairly large assumption. Even the generic Pathfinder game I play every week has 'overarching social and financial aspects'... our PCs are consistently reminded we're small fish in a big pond.

So your players have to deal with constant bureaucracy?  Like making sure they have the right permits to carry their weapons openly and making sure they're the right length or that they don't have any illegal spells?  They can turn on their magic box and find out that a murder occurred seven leagues away and that Princess Skullbreaker is having an affair with a peasant?

Every dungeon is explored and taxed by the local ruler?

Quote from: Simlasa;880741I do think there's something about the appeal of power fantasy though... on a personal level rather than just the external acquisition of better equipment and contacts. But not all fantasy games feature huge personal advancements either.

That's where the 'exploration' aspect kicks in.  A lot of Science Fiction games explore a 'known' section of the setting, and it's assumed that it's been mostly tamed.  Whereas the more fantastical settings you have vast swaths of the unexplored with little stations and outposts and ruins you can interact with.

Quote from: Spike;880753Well... I skipped Blue Planet because playing a sentient dolphin has zero appeal to me.*

No wonder.

If, for some weird reason, one of PCs comes from entirely different environment, or can't otherwise travel in typical places/interact with typical elements of the world, then it produces helluva problems for players and DM alike, and making sure that the scenario contains at least a few moments when "the otherkin" feels at home is just the tip of an iceberg.

btw, I've never in my life participated in a session featuring non-NPC dolphins, even if Blue Planet relies heavy on aquatic scenery. Everyone agreed it's just too much. ;]

...for similar reasons familiars bigger than, let's say a giant spider are usually no-no in our fantasy settings. I'd really wish to see how people manage a dungeon crawl with a big dinosaur familiar, though.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;880757So your players have to deal with constant bureaucracy?

Yes, to varying degrees. Our home town in the game has a definite hierarchy of government, laws we're expected to obey... taxes on the land and buildings we own. There are laws against wearing armor and weapons openly in town.
My sorcerer PC had to register with the local archmage and the wizards' college.

QuoteThey can turn on their magic box and find out that a murder occurred seven leagues away and that Princess Skullbreaker is having an affair with a peasant?

Nope.

Once again you seem to be under the impression that everyone plays their games according to your preconceived notions...

Strange, I think there are plenty of RPGs that are harder sf than Star Trek - I thought this was going to be about the absence of games set in Arthur C Clarke/Isaac Asimov/David Brin type universes. Maybe Star Trek level of sf is at the hard end for video games, I didn't know Mass Effect was an outlier. Something like Elite would surely be at least as hard sf as Star Trek though.

Why are true Science Fiction settings so rare?
1. Science
2. Math

Quote from: Simlasa;880774Yes, to varying degrees. Our home town in the game has a definite hierarchy of government, laws we're expected to obey... taxes on the land and buildings we own. There are laws against wearing armor and weapons openly in town.
My sorcerer PC had to register with the local archmage and the wizards' college.

Nope.

Once again you seem to be under the impression that everyone plays their games according to your preconceived notions...

Reminds me when my players plotted a downfall of a Greekxpy City - State by trying to exploit their sales tax politic.

To be fair, I had a guy who worked in IRS helping me develop the whole thing, but it was still pretty funny.

Quote from: CRKrueger;880798Why are true Science Fiction settings so rare?
1. Science
2. Math

Pretty much this. I'd shoot my head off if I wanted to run a hard sci - fi, because I know a lot of my friends'd be riding my arse too much over inconsistencies.

Quote from: CRKrueger;880798Why are true Science Fiction settings so rare?
1. Science
2. Math

Look man. I made it through Universe. The RPG where you need to do square roots just to finish char-gen! :cool: And then you have to calculate your jump routes in three dimensions! :cheerleader:

Without getting into Star Trek vs. Star Wars?

SF games are rare because SF as a genre has been dwindling in pop culture visibility for the last 10 years at least. Star Wars and Star Trek have been pressing on for decades, in one form or another, but none of their modern incarnations has had the sheer popular impact of the originals, and to the best of my knowledge no other IP has come close.

Meanwhile, on the fantasy front, we've had Tolkien movies, a runaway hit ASoIaF TV series and even Shannara is getting a live-action version. Four-color superheroics are a Big Thing in Hollywood. But very little "straight" SF.

Quote from: The Butcher;880809Without getting into Star Trek vs. Star Wars?

SF games are rare because SF as a genre has been dwindling in pop culture visibility for the last 10 years at least. Star Wars and Star Trek have been pressing on for decades, in one form or another, but none of their modern incarnations has had the sheer popular impact of the originals, and to the best of my knowledge no other IP has come close.

Meanwhile, on the fantasy front, we've had Tolkien movies, a runaway hit ASoIaF TV series and even Shannara is getting a live-action version. Four-color superheroics are a Big Thing in Hollywood. But very little "straight" SF.

Hard Sci - Fi was never really a big thing - I'd say the number of classic hard sci - fi writers entering mainstream and classical literature acclaim is about double of fantasy writers, but that is counting Verne and Wells.

Quote from: Rincewind1;880811Hard Sci - Fi was never really a big thing - I'd say the number of classic hard sci - fi writers entering mainstream and classical literature acclaim is about double of fantasy writers, but that is counting Verne and Wells.

What does that have to do with anything I posted above? :confused:

Quote from: The Butcher;880809SF games are rare because SF as a genre has been dwindling in pop culture visibility for the last 10 years at least.

Not quite. Theres been a big push towards the hard side of SF in movies and especially TV series lately. Then it will swing in another direction again and so it goes.

I'd love to see some more hard SF shows like Star Cops and the short lived Moonbase 3. Or lighter on the scale, but still overall hard SF like the first season of Space:1999. Theres some others. But those three I enjoyed.

Qustion is though. How Hard do you want the SF?

Some players do not like the really hard SF of Albedo. No lasers. No aliens. No artificial gravity, just about no robots and effectively no psi.

Some like the median such as Star Frontiers. Lasers, aliens, but no anti-gravity or psi. Or Buck Rogers which had no aliens.

Or further down the ladder as more fantasy elements get added in like super-science and psi that acts like magic.

From working on RPGs like this and quizzing customers. Seems psi powers is the cut off point most often cited. Empathy or telepathy? ok. Telekinesis? Maybee. Energy beams and throwing tanks? No.

Quote from: The Butcher;880814What does that have to do with anything I posted above? :confused:

Well I thought it was an obvious elaboration on your point - it's hardly surprising that Hard SF games are so popular, because not only SF is generally dwindling in popularity, it wasn't very mainstream to begin with.

Geeks will eat anything that is sprinkled with Star Wars. Star Wars is the future of getting anything sold now. Must be something to do with the nerd sticks?

Quote from: Rincewind1;880818Well I thought it was an obvious elaboration on your point - it's hardly surprising that Hard SF games are so popular, because not only SF is generally dwindling in popularity, it wasn't very mainstream to begin with.

Right. Sorry. I wasn't really dwelling on "hard SF" as I don't think either Star Wars or Star Trek fit the bill. Besides, I feel "proper" or "straight" SF (meaning, SF as its own genre, as opposed to a component in a mash-up) as a whole, and not just the difficult-to-pin-down Hard SF subgenre, has been underrepresented in TRPGs at least since the 1990s.

You are right that SF lit has always been niche but, in my experience, no more (and maybe even less) than fantasy lit. I feel pop culture cachet has everything to do with "priming" the target audience of a game.

Quote from: Omega;880816Not quite. Theres been a big push towards the hard side of SF in movies and especially TV series lately. Then it will swing in another direction again and so it goes.

There's definitely been a push on the hard SF front — Gravity, Interstellar, The Expanse — but it may be early to say whether it'll be a successful one, in terms of leaving as lasting an impression as Star Trek or Star Wars, or the LotR and ASoIaF adaptations.

Hard SF can be brutally boring if it isnt some sort of war or criminal theme. Moonbase 3 for example. Still a great show. Whereas Star Cops has the investigative angle or Albedo has the WWII in space angle.

Generation ships can work too. Though those tend to end up just being environmental sets and little SF in some cases. Early episodes of Starlost of all things had a good mix of SF and environ.

Dragon Magazine ran some nice articles on adapting Top Secret to a orbital and moon based setting. And there were the two Star Frontiers modules that converted it to 2001:space Odyssee.

SF RPGs are not rare, Hell, I've personally written Sweet Chariot (2 editions), StarCluster (3 editions with a fourth on the way), In Harm's Way: StarCluster, The Necklace, the Cold Space-FTL Now-Commonwealth Space trilogy of games, Lowell Was Right, and the free game Merchanters and Stationers. All 'true' SF RPGs, not a 'science fantasy' game in the bunch.

I would say that the authors of that screed are full of shit on two counts - one that there is some scarcity of SF games, as I bet that SF games at least as 'Hard" as StarTrek far outnumber Science Fantasy games, and two that the divide is between StarTrek and Star Wars type games.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;880841I would say that the authors of that screed are full of shit on two counts - one that there is some scarcity of SF games, as I bet that SF games at least as 'Hard" as StarTrek far outnumber Science Fantasy games, and two that the divide is between StarTrek and Star Wars type games.

I wouldn't say SF games are "scarce" but, in my (possibly insular and/or exceptional) experience, they are definitely underrepresented next to the huge chunk of attention that at least two other genres (fantasy, with horror a distant second) garner.

As for the Star Wars vs. Star Trek divide, well... I'm loath to declare Star Wars "not real SF" as it's a genre-defining example to a truckload of people, but deep down I feel the overarching narrative of the original trilogy does seem to have more in common with high fantasy and even fairy tales, than with Star Trek's episodic problem-solving formula. So I kind of see where video guy is coming from, even if I see no point in the "what is Real SF" pissing match.

Well, if you take the premise of Science Fiction as "posit a new technology, and explore the ramifications", then Star Wars isn't Sci-Fi at all.  Space doesn't make something Sci-Fi.

Outland isn't a Sci-Fi movie, it's a western in space.

However, a lot of Star Trek episodes aren't Sci-Fi either, the science is just Deus Ex Machina technobabble.

However, some Star Trek episodes, like City on the Edge of Forever, are as Sci-Fi as it gets.

Quote from: The Butcher;880845I wouldn't say SF games are "scarce" but, in my (possibly insular and/or exceptional) experience, they are definitely underrepresented next to the huge chunk of attention that at least two other genres (fantasy, with horror a distant second) garner.

As for the Star Wars vs. Star Trek divide, well... I'm loath to declare Star Wars "not real SF" as it's a genre-defining example to a truckload of people, but deep down I feel the overarching narrative of the original trilogy does seem to have more in common with high fantasy and even fairy tales, than with Star Trek's episodic problem-solving formula. So I kind of see where video guy is coming from, even if I see no point in the "what is Real SF" pissing match.

I was using the terms as used by the link, Butcher. Yes, there are far fewer SF RPGs than fantasy or horror, but "real" SF games are not rarer than "Science Fantasy" games (again, using their terms), they are more common. Personally. SF is on a huge spectrum, where sub-genres bleed into other sub-genres, and I have no problem with Star Wars as SF. It's just a bit less sciency than StarTrek, which is a bit less so than Traveller, which is somewhat less so than The Expanse, which is a tad less so than The Martian, but exactly where each fits into the greater spectrum I don't particularly care. I'm not a dividing line kind of guy. :D

-clash

Quote from: Simlasa;880774Yes, to varying degrees. Our home town in the game has a definite hierarchy of government, laws we're expected to obey... taxes on the land and buildings we own. There are laws against wearing armor and weapons openly in town.
My sorcerer PC had to register with the local archmage and the wizards' college.

I don't see that as fun, but hey, if your crew likes it, I have no right to say it's good or bad.  You keep on trucking!

Quote from: Simlasa;880774Nope.

Once again you seem to be under the impression that everyone plays their games according to your preconceived notions...

That statement was to show one of the problems with a Sci-Fi setting, where information gets passed around at an incredibly fast rate typically, which can limit part of the 'exploration' factor of an RPG session.  And for SOME people can be a big factor as to why we don't do Science Fiction all that often.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;880880I don't see that as fun, but hey, if your crew likes it, I have no right to say it's good or bad.  You keep on trucking!

It's fun because it challenges the players think of ways around it. If you challenge them, players get used to thinking outside the box.

QuoteThat statement was to show one of the problems with a Sci-Fi setting, where information gets passed around at an incredibly fast rate typically, which can limit part of the 'exploration' factor of an RPG session.  And for SOME people can be a big factor as to why we don't do Science Fiction all that often.

It's not a problem if you as GM are prepared for information zipping around at an incredibly fast rate, and you build that preparation into the game. Yes, you can't just slap a D&D adventure into a SF game and expect it to work. But if you design your adventures around that you will find it's not limiting at all.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;880880I don't see that as fun, but hey, if your crew likes it, I have no right to say it's good or bad.  You keep on trucking!

I prefer it to the 'murderhobo' routine. It emphasizes the consequences of our actions... at this point we've got a whole community to think of, so pissing off powerful enemies can come back on more than just our PCs. And like Flyingmice mentions, it creates more complex situations that can't necessarily be solved by hitting them with your axe.

QuoteThat statement was to show one of the problems with a Sci-Fi setting, where information gets passed around at an incredibly fast rate typically, which can limit part of the 'exploration' factor of an RPG session.

Yeah, sorry I misread you.
There is fast travel/communication available but they're expensive/uncommon so it doesn't mean all locations are discovered and locked down. The last dungeon we went into was much like a Shadowrun mission given to us by the cult that usually is in charge of monitoring the place.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;880880I don't see that as fun

Out of curiosity: are your players unconstrained by any form of laws/government? I mean, I understand it's fantasy, but what the redhair speaks about doesn't struck me as particularly challenging/complicated elements of any civilization, no matter whether it's fantasy or not.

Quote from: Omega;880816Qustion is though. How Hard do you want the SF?

Some players do not like the really hard SF of Albedo. No lasers. No aliens. No artificial gravity, just about no robots and effectively no psi.

.

See, I hate this sort of purist 'hard' sci-fi you describe here. Mostly it looks to me like people want to read about 1970's era america with no gravity.

Lets look at what you put up in your description of Albedo.

No lasers:

What the fuckity fuck? Lasers objectively exist. This technology is REAL. Can't have it. Its not science fiction enough for Hard-Sci-Fi purists?  

What would make it harder is a clear grasp of the science that make Lasers work. You know: Lens diameters and focal distances. The same with any more 'advanced' speculative technologies that don't exist yet, but could.

No Aliens?

Well, granted we don't know of any alien sophonts out there yet, but we're pretty sure they do exist somewhere.  To cut that out entirely by declaring anything with aliens 'not hard' is pure elitist bullshit.

No Artifical Gravity:

Eh.  And a hypothetical Science Fiction story written in, oh, 1870, should not include things like heavier than air flight or working submersibles?  

Now I'm actually fairly on board with this is a lesser sense. I think over reliance on easy artifical gravity is a lazy writing technique rather than speculative fiction, but I also accept that one day something more effective than 'spin like a motherfucker' will be in use.  

No Robots:

See my argument about lasers.  Robots are a real thing, they exist and are doing shit now, as in today. Your typical Amazon warehouse is sorting and stocking using entirely robots, and they are talking about using robots (Drones) for deliveries, and experimenting with them now.  How the fuck is having robots in the future somehow 'Not Hard Sci-Fi'?

No Psi:

No argument there.  The Psionic's boat has sailed. Its 'future magic'.


Now, this isn't to overly pick on you, or Albedo, which I know only what you told me in your post, more or less.  I just get really tired of being told something isn't 'Hard' Sci Fi because it isn't based on what NASA was doing when I was a child.  That's an amazingly regressive view of the genre, and more importantly it misses the boat by focusing on the window dressing, the technologies employed.

To me the difference between hard and soft sci-fi, or sci fi and space opera or space fantasy... however you wish to describe the spectrum... is how much effort the author puts into understanding his technology and its implications, how true to what we understand he tries to be.

I'm having a hard time putting clearly, so I'll resort to an example.

Faster than Light is a staple of Science Fiction, though it is a point of contention on the Hard/Soft science debate.  

If the author merely has ships zipping around the galaxy willy nilly, or tosses out some mcguffin statement about 'hyperspace'... that's pretty clearly soft.  Either he doesn't understand that going faster than light is, to our current understanding, impossible or he simply doesn't care to think about it.

If, on the other hand, he (or she, as in Bujold for example), recognizes that limitation and postulates using some form of wormhole technology, with clear and consistent rules (if not math), that's clearly at least moderately firm science fiction. The understood laws of physics (relativity) aren't being violated, but we are taking it for granted that some buzz wordy concepts are actually going to prove viable at some point.

In our final example our author takes a currently speculative theoretical concept and lays out an expansion of the current mathematical principles, lets say he talks about the concept of space as a sheet, with large bodies of mass depressing the sheet (gravity), and then expands that to explain how FTL works by bunching that sheet and punching through the bunches (Folding space)... well, we're getting harder, maybe much harder, depending on how much work he's put into this purely speculative technology.

Now, I don't want to get caught up in suggesting worm holes are jello-sci-fi, and folding space is hard sci fi. It could just as easily work the other way around. The difference is the amount of work in creating the plausibility of the purely speculative technology, and tying it to what we already know or suspect.  So the Tannenhauser Gates of Heavy Gears (wormholes) are 'harder' than Bujold's wormholes (without actually getting to be hard sci-fi... spectrum, recall), because we have quite a bit more effort into tying their existence to the world we already know.

And that last bit is amusing because in general Bujold's science is more realistic than Heavy Gear.  the point is that her Wormholes simply exist and are used/exploited for FTL travel with no further explanation, and some asshole in Dream Pod 9 actually sat down one day and worked out who discovered stable wormholes and how they worked, then put it in a book.

btw, like the guy or not but Michio Kaku wrote such a book once:


I think it might come in handy when "which future-tech is possible" is discussed. ;]

Quote from: JesterRaiin;880904Out of curiosity: are your players unconstrained by any form of laws/government?

In the S&S game I just started about 3 days ago there is no government where they are at the moment.  And if something goes tits up in one city, they can go somewhere where no one will know them.

In the Supers game I'm running, they're vigilantes, and have to deal with the consequences of their actions, but they're allowed to do what their hearts' say.  They haven't actually killed anyone, because they're allowed to choose.

The thing is, in a Fantasy game, a bunch of ragtag heroes can challenge an evil lord and make things better for all involved.  In a more modern setting (short of a Superhero game) the Evil lord tends to control every avenue of change, and worse, they have a higher authority to appeal and likely win back any change that occurs.

Because there's a power structure in place that players typically feel that they can't do anything about.  (Not saying it's true, it's a common perception from where I'm from.)

Quote from: Christopher Brady;880908In the S&S game I just started about 3 days ago there is no government where they are at the moment.  And if something goes tits up in one city, they can go somewhere where no one will know them.

In the Supers game I'm running, they're vigilantes, and have to deal with the consequences of their actions, but they're allowed to do what their hearts' say.  They haven't actually killed anyone, because they're allowed to choose.

The thing is, in a Fantasy game, a bunch of ragtag heroes can challenge an evil lord and make things better for all involved.  In a more modern setting (short of a Superhero game) the Evil lord tends to control every avenue of change, and worse, they have a higher authority to appeal and likely win back any change that occurs.

Because there's a power structure in place that players typically feel that they can't do anything about.  (Not saying it's true, it's a common perception from where I'm from.)

Tell me, if it's no secret: are your players always/usually on the side of "good" (in a broad sense, details aren't the important thing here)?

Quote from: JesterRaiin;880911Tell me, if it's no secret: are your players always/usually on the side of "good" (in a broad sense, details aren't the important thing here)?

Typically?  Yes.  Not entirely sure why.  But they are.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;880907btw, like the guy or not but Michio Kaku wrote such a book once:

(http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1320469147l/1168341.jpg)

I think it might come in handy when "which future-tech is possible" is discussed. ;]

I'm assuming that's for me?


If so, thanks. I'll look it up.

Does anyone have thoughts on some of the other things discussed in the video, like the more limited enemy palette and such?

Quote from: Spike;880905See, I hate this sort of purist 'hard' sci-fi you describe here. Mostly it looks to me like people want to read about 1970's era america with no gravity.

Lets look at what you put up in your description of Albedo.

No lasers:

What the fuckity fuck? Lasers objectively exist. This technology is REAL. Can't have it. Its not science fiction enough for Hard-Sci-Fi purists?  

What would make it harder is a clear grasp of the science that make Lasers work. You know: Lens diameters and focal distances. The same with any more 'advanced' speculative technologies that don't exist yet, but could.

No Aliens?

Well, granted we don't know of any alien sophonts out there yet, but we're pretty sure they do exist somewhere.  To cut that out entirely by declaring anything with aliens 'not hard' is pure elitist bullshit.

No Artifical Gravity:

Eh.  And a hypothetical Science Fiction story written in, oh, 1870, should not include things like heavier than air flight or working submersibles?  

Now I'm actually fairly on board with this is a lesser sense. I think over reliance on easy artifical gravity is a lazy writing technique rather than speculative fiction, but I also accept that one day something more effective than 'spin like a motherfucker' will be in use.  

No Robots:

See my argument about lasers.  Robots are a real thing, they exist and are doing shit now, as in today. Your typical Amazon warehouse is sorting and stocking using entirely robots, and they are talking about using robots (Drones) for deliveries, and experimenting with them now.  How the fuck is having robots in the future somehow 'Not Hard Sci-Fi'?

1: As noted. I am not exactly fond of it either. Albedo was not an example of that. Its an example of what hard SF can be.

2: No man portable lasers. And last check no space based ones. Part of the reason for that was it may be intentional. The other is that alot of space based warfare is ACV driven at very long distances. ship-to-ship beam weapons are impractical. In that setting nearly all the weapons systems are kinetic. See below for an example.

3: It is never explained why. It may be like in some other SF settings where there are no aliens. There are though some alien life forms but the while sector was scrubbed to some degree before the project began. The only animals seem to be fish and large predatory centipedes on a few worlds. I am definitly not in the SF camp that declares aliens=fantasy.

4: It gets annoying when its present even in settings where the tech obviously cant be. I used to think that viewers and readers were not so stupid as to require linear ships simply because thats how ocean ships are. But after watching the increasing insistence of so called fans to make the Star Frontiers ships linear. Guess people are.

5: As said. Mostly no robots. There arent any in the standard SF autonomous sense. But they are used nearly exclusively in space combat. Ships launch autonomous combat vehicles and these try to either intercept the other sides ACVs or slam into the other sides ships. Essentially guided kinetic weapons. They get used later in the series instead of nukes to create a concussion blast by slamming a bunch at velocity over a city from orbit. What ground based robots there are seem to be of the program and set sort. And again that may be intentional.

X: Star Frontiers for me counts as Hard SF for its lack of anti gravity, lack of psi, and overall depiction. Buck rogers may too. But I know about nothing of its system outside the SSI goldbox port to PC.

Hard Sci-Fi is a stupid name.  Because every time someone describes what it is, and puts more and more and more limitations on it, it becomes nearly indistinguishable to real life as that person understands it.

There's also this common mistake of forgetting the second part of that phrase.  Science FICTION.

And I'm pretty sure I've already argued this and posted this somewhere here but:  The only difference on, for example, Star Trek, 2001, Star Wars, V, Alien Nation (and so on) is how hard the setting leans on one side of the Science vs. Fiction coin.

I love stuff that would probably be labeled Hard Sci-fi but never understood the fight over purity of the genre or rigid definitions. Obviously it is a spectrum (some writers are more grounded in science and use that as a basis for speculating on the future), some respect the real world science but smooth over the details to make things more readable, and others are not as restrained by the real world science but still have a lot of the tropes and themes. At the end of the day, I have a better time reading something like Asimov or Clarke, but I can still enjoy Star Wars.

While I do think math and science are a barrier to harder sci fi and might explain why some GMs would lean more on the Star Wars style games, I think the reason you don't see as much of it in RPGs is because it is more constraining from a campaign and adventure standpoint (there are just more rigid limitations on things like space travel, time travel, etc if you are using real science---and breaking those limitations requires a good grounding in the science). 2001 makes a great movie but it is a bit harder to squeeze a campaign out of. At least, I think that is the impression people have and why they might eschew that end of the spectrum (I could see something like Caves of Steel being a cool basis for a campaign for example).

Quote from: CRKrueger;880798Why are true Science Fiction settings so rare?
1. Science
2. Math

Yeah, there is that.

Quote from: Spike;880753Well... I skipped Blue Planet because playing a sentient dolphin has zero appeal to me.

Keepiru asks, "Why does Spike hate fins?"

Quote from: Omega;880804Look man. I made it through Universe. The RPG where you need to do square roots just to finish char-gen! :cool: And then you have to calculate your jump routes in three dimensions! :cheerleader:

Only three dimensions? ;-)     But I agree. I like 3 dimensions in my space Sci-Fi.

Quote from: Omega;880816Or lighter on the scale, but still overall hard SF like the first season of Space:1999. Theres some others. But those three I enjoyed.

Space: 1999. :rant: B.b.b.but a nuclear waste dumb blew the moon out of orbit and into deep space, without disrupting Moonbase Alpha. WTF?!?

Quote from: Omega;880816Or Buck Rogers which had no aliens.

Did you  forget this guy.
(http://www.burnteffects.com/old_tvseries/buck_rogers/buck-103-hawk.jpg)
And earlier incarnations had the Tiger Men of Mars who look at least as alien as most facial appliance Star Trek aliens.

Quote from: Elfdart;880718I lasted all of 52 seconds before it became clear that the video is the work of a complete fucktard. The only people who think Star Trek is "true science fiction" and Star Wars isn't are disgruntled Trekkies who have been sore since 1977 when their pet sci-fi franchise was surpassed in popularity. So they make up some horseshit silver lining that Star Wars isn't "really" sci-fi, and therefore Star Trek is supreme once again or something. It's like Colts fans being all cunty and crying about how the reason the Patriots have habitually kicked the Colts' asses is because of deflated footballs -as if that somehow means the Pats' championships don't really count.

Both franchises feature telekinesis, telepathy, FTL travel and communications. Star Wars has ghosts for favorite dead characters, and Star Trek has reincarnation. The main difference is that in Star Trek, they throw the word quantum around like Rip Taylor flings confetti (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebiT8mlCvZY), to dupe scientifically illiterate types into thinking there's REAL SCIENCE going on as they fill up time giving a bullshit explanation as to why a piece of machinery works (or doesn't work). In Star Wars, they don't waste time/bore the audience with explanations about why something works (or not), they simply show it working or not working, and then get on to the next action sequence or dramatic revelation.

Imagine this kind of thinking being applied to any other genre. For example, a gangster movie like The Godfather. Only a pedantic bore is going to go into detail about the inner workings of Clemenza's shotgun, or the elevator bringing Victor Stracci to the floor where Clemenza is going to blow him away. The devices are there and they either work or don't work as desired for the plot.

I can't wait for this marvel of intellect to post his next video about how Roy Rogers movies are "real westerns" and Gene Autry movies aren't

I'm a HUGE Trek fan, but I know that the science of Trek takes a (far) back seat to scientific reality. Because scientific reality is fucking BORING, if you're scripting a series. Elements of Trek are grounded in scientific theory, but, at this point, we know there's plenty of horsehit. +1, for pointing out the obvious crap, when it comes that that.

(Of course, this doesn't take away from the fact that Star Wars is juvenile horseshit geared for 12-year olds).:-)

Quote from: Bren;880952Keepiru asks, "Why does Spike hate fins?"

.

Me? I LOVE dolphins. That's why I only by unsound fishing practices tuna.  Extra seasoning.


I just don't want to be at a table where someone thinks its a good idea to PLAY one.

Or even, at that, a moderately appealing idea.

No, no, no...

The only way I'll accept a dolphin player character (from either side of the screen) is if the guy(gal or whatever) playing the dolphin is doing so because its such a bad idea it has to be awesome.

And at the end of the night we all pinky swear that it never happened, and we have to ritually murder and cannibalize anyone who dares mention the events of the night that didn't actually happen.



Or, you know, the damn dolphin PC is stuck in a oversized coke can and basically burbles on in a bad canadian scottish accent about how he's not a miracle worker.

Hard Sci-Fi can be fine, I've read plenty of interesting stories set within the constrictions of it. But yes, I prefer soft sci-fi or "science fantasy." Here is an example of why: Recently I read Alastair Reynold's novel "On the Steel Breeze". It was okay, not great but it is in the tradition (mostly) of hard sci-fi. There is no FTL drive. Giant spaceships take decades to travel to a nearby start at about 12% the speed of light. There are aliens but they are not really seen. The antagonists are politically motivated humans and a rogue AI. The main character is a clone and their are uplifted elephants. That's it. Everything happens slowly. There are several jumps in the narrative where 20 or more years pass.

In Science Fantasy this same story would be radically different. It would take weeks, maybe just days to travel to a new solar system. Aliens and AIs would be everywhere and dealing with them would be nothing new. The PCs would deal with the problems then move on to other things instead of making a career out of solving just one problem.

I agree with what was previously said. Most people just don't want to deal with real math and real science. Not in a hardcore way.

Quote from: The Butcher;880809Meanwhile, on the fantasy front, we've had Tolkien movies, a runaway hit ASoIaF TV series and even Shannara is getting a live-action version. Four-color superheroics are a Big Thing in Hollywood. But very little "straight" SF.

Hm, don't know about that. Moon, Interstellar, Ex Machina, Gravity, Dawn/Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Inception, Beyond the Black Rainbow, Time Crimes, Upstream Colours, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Sunshine, Primer, "Her", I'd all classify as "hard" sci-fi, or at least science fiction vs science fantasy.

Quote from: CRKrueger;880846Well, if you take the premise of Science Fiction as "posit a new technology, and explore the ramifications", then Star Wars isn't Sci-Fi at all.  Space doesn't make something Sci-Fi.

I guess you missed the part about the Death Star.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;880913Typically?  Yes.  Not entirely sure why.  But they are.

Then I think I know why you don't need that much law and "order" - there's no need to put your players "on the leash", since they all behave reasonably and it's natural.

I've seen such groups. Very nice people to play with.

Quote from: Spike;880914I'm assuming that's for me?
If so, thanks. I'll look it up.

Among other people, but yes, it was your post that made me recall this book.

Kaku wrote it in digestible style, and rather than allow his mind to wander into the lands of vague speculations, he actually tried to address things like laser weaponry, their flaws and suggest some modified variations, more probable form the point of view of modern science. A few concepts of his were quite fresh and new - for example, I don't recall any RPG that uses starship "shields" in form of "clouds".

Quote from: TristramEvans;880975I'd all classify as "hard" sci-fi

May I interest you in this little gem? I assume you don't know it (correct me if I'm wrong), because no one mentions it, and it's very good example of hard SF.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381940/ (//CARGO)

(http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BNzUyOTgwMTA0MV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNTMwOTYyMw@@._V1_SX640_SY720_.jpg)

That link goes nowhere

Quote from: JesterRaiin;881006May I interest you in this little gem? I assume you don't know it (correct me if I'm wrong), because no one mentions it, and it's very good example of hard SF.

Hadn't heard of that. I'll look it up, thanks.

Quote from: TristramEvans;881021Hadn't heard of that. I'll look it up, thanks.

If possible, don't neglect original language version. It's totally worth it to settle for subtitles and enjoy watching Germans In Space. ;]

Quote from: Christopher Brady;880941Hard Sci-Fi is a stupid name.  Because every time someone describes what it is, and puts more and more and more limitations on it, it becomes nearly indistinguishable to real life as that person understands it.

Totally. Someone somewhere allways wants to exclude that little more than the last. Luckily it in general gets ignored. Writers and designers are going to have their own takes on it.

In general though Hard SF tends to, but not allways, mean SF with an emphasis on current known S and not much F. Things that are relatively plausible with current technology or not too far advanced tech. Psionics and Linear anti-gravity ships for example pretty much pops you out of the hard and into regular SF. Least till someone actually comes up with a method.

Quote from: Bren;880952Space: 1999. :rant: B.b.b.but a nuclear waste dumb blew the moon out of orbit and into deep space, without disrupting Moonbase Alpha. WTF?!?

Did you  forget this guy.
And earlier incarnations had the Tiger Men of Mars who look at least as alien as most facial appliance Star Trek aliens.

1: If anyone payed attention theyd have noted that it wasnt blown out of orbit, it was blasted out of orbit. As in blast off. The dump acting as a huge atomic/magnetic/warp engine. "But everyone would rather harp on explosion did it!" Sorry. That was Ellison and Bova pulling a marketing dig to shill their own SF series. Which they both disowned.

2: Was referring to the first TSR RPG Buck Rogers RPG. There are no aliens. Just rampant genetic engineering.

Quote from: Omega;881036In general though Hard SF tends to, but not allways, mean SF with an emphasis on current known S and not much F. Things that are relatively plausible with current technology or not too far advanced tech. Psionics and Linear anti-gravity ships for example pretty much pops you out of the hard and into regular SF. Least till someone actually comes up with a method.

I'm curious where would you put Prometheus and Alien+Aliens movies if "hard SF" and "SF" would be the only options.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;881041I'm curious where would you put Prometheus and Alien+Aliens movies if "hard SF" and "SF" would be the only options.

The characters, weaponry and look of the spaceships and colony would be Hard-SF. The androids - difficult to say how far in that direction we can go in that direction but for now let's say Hard-SF. The monsters - I'm no expert on biology and what is possible but again, for now, we'll call them Hard-SF. The FTL drive, anti-grav and terraforming parts is Science Fantasy.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;881041I'm curious where would you put Prometheus and Alien+Aliens movies if "hard SF" and "SF" would be the only options.

All of those would generally qualify as hard SF.

FTL travel doesn't technically fit the definition of hard SF, but it's not unusual for it to get a "free pass" so to speak. (And the slow FTL of the Alien-verse gets an extra pass for being layered with a lot of hard SF accoutrements.)

Couple things to keep in mind:

First, by all practical measures, "hard SF" is a spectrum. SF gets harder or softer depending on the degree to which it respects our current understanding of science. One can look at Star Trek and say, "Well, that's definitely not hard SF." and one can look at Gravity and say, "That's definitely hard SF." But there's no clear, defining line at which something automatically ceases to be hard SF.

Second, Christopher Brady's definition of "science fantasy" is not the way that term is used in the real world. In the real world, science fantasy refers to works which feature world-building speculations based on both science/technology and also on magic/supernatural. Star Wars isn't science fantasy because George Lucas didn't explain how hyperdrives work; it's science fantasy because there are space wizards wielding a mystical force which permeates the entire galaxy.

Quote from: Elfdart;880976I guess you missed the part about the Death Star.

Eh, you have a point, but in no way was the focal point of the series "How does the possibility of the Death Star change the human condition?" The Rebel Fleet presumably is a small fleet-based society, kind of like Battlestar Galactica, but we don't see any of it, and it's doubtful that the fleet is in direct response to the Death Star anyway.  As menacing as it is, there's nothing new to discuss, and plotwise, the Death Star is kind of like the Guns of Navarone.

Arguably, you could make some real world connections to nuclear weapons, fascism, etc, but if present it's there the same way the myths are created from the reality of the creators.

The softer it is, the more likely there will be FTL, teleporters and laser weapons. If it feels gritty it's probably on the harder side of the spectrum. In a way just like Game of Thrones of the Witcher feels more realistic than LotR or D&D. So to me Alien is harder and so is for example Blade Runner.

Science Fantasy though got to have something magical or mystical and possibly swords and other archaic weaponry. Numenera is science fantasy to me.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;881041I'm curious where would you put Prometheus and Alien+Aliens movies if "hard SF" and "SF" would be the only options.

Alien and Aliens seems to be relatively hard SF. But they have linear artificial gravity ships. Not sure on the ship drive. Is it really fast or is it FTL? Seems like it must be FTL. But still very long.

So fairly hard to start and then drifting with each successive movie. Havent seen Prometheus yet but all accounts seem to indicate its even further away from the hard end than Alien 4.

I would agree with the assessment that "Star Trek" works better as SF and "Star Wars" as fantasy. That's not a matter of the selection of far-out trappings (such as FTL spaceships and ESP).

It's a matter of ST being interested in exploring both current social issues and potential developments along with telling an adventure tale, and emphasizing the solution of problems through thinking. SW meanwhile is about perennial mythology, close enough to timeless in the human psyche, and uses "outer space" and "high tech" imagery for that resonance rather than to take at all seriously the differences between those elements of stage dressing and the circumstances of an ancient or medieval saga.

Fantasy is just a lot more popular than SF generally, because it provides the "comfort food" of pure entertainment that makes no great intellectual demand but taps directly into deep-rooted archetypes.  Add to that the familiarity in RPG circles of Dungeons & Dragons and its ilk, and it's pretty natural that most of what we get is basically the same power tripping with magic guns added to magic blades.

Quote from: CRKrueger;880798Why are true Science Fiction settings so rare?
1. Science
2. Math

That's silly, considering how little those figure in SF itself, even before getting to stories focused on the 'soft' sciences such as psychology. It doesn't take math to read Heinlein or Clarke or Sheffield, never mind Blish or Simak or Le Guin.

Real-world facts not so widely known among those with little interest in science sometimes do play a key role. However, the essential 'science' element is just the approach of observing, forming a hypothesis, and testing it experimentally. That itself is "not fun" to more people than the number who find it a blast. The rest prefer literal blasting away, solving problems with explosions.

Thanks guys. I see that I wasn't wrong in my assumption.

Funnily enough, around here people don't bring Prometheus that often when Hard SF is discussed.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;881150Second, Christopher Brady's definition of "science fantasy" is not the way that term is used in the real world. In the real world, science fantasy refers to works which feature world-building speculations based on both science/technology and also on magic/supernatural. Star Wars isn't science fantasy because George Lucas didn't explain how hyperdrives work; it's science fantasy because there are space wizards wielding a mystical force which permeates the entire galaxy.

This might sound kind of awkward, but what do you mean exactly by "explain"? I mean, come to think about it, movies rarely truly explain future-tech. There's not much to explain in Gravity or The Martian, because there's not much of future-tech.

But, consider 2001: A Space Odyssey often cited as hard SF movie. Kubrick didn't really took any time to explain anything and there was sort of cryosleep, pilots using what seems to be tablets, such things. On the other hand Event Horizon: not very good example of hard SF, but one of central characters, Dr. Weir, puts on the mantle of Mr. Exposition, explains the concept of FTL travel, black-hole based drive... while in reality explaining nothing. It's just a bunch of words, that are supposed to see like an explanation, but at the end of day we still don't know how it's possible that people managed to create an artificial black hole.

So, what's your opinion on this topic?

Hard vs soft sci-fi isn't defined by how much explanation you get though you will often get a lot of science exposition in hard sci-fi.  Lots of science-y babble does not make something hard sci-fi though.

Hard sci-fi is based on current scientific theory.  All of the science fiction elements are at least theoretically possible based on our current understanding of science even the seemingly implausible ones.  There tends to be a lot of exposition to explain how this or that might be possible.  It's to explain how life on a neutron start (Dragon's Egg by Robert L Forward) or a 50 km long alien starship (Rendezvous With Rama) might actually be possible.

Soft sc-fi features elements that have no grounding in current theory.  Star Trek, with its multiple kinds of unobtanium, is soft sci-fi.  There may be extensive Treknobabble about how the warp drive or the transporter work but none of it has any grounding in real science.  Most sci-fi is, to some extent, soft sci-fi.  Writing truly hard sci-fi is difficult.  It requires a grounding in science that most authors don't have and constrains what can be done.  People like Robert L Forward who are Doctors of physics and sci-fi authors are few and far between.  Writing soft sci-fi makes a lot of things easier too.  For example, if you want interstellar wars, you have to come up with some way this is possible (Joseph Haldeman, The Forever War) and deal with the complications (time dilation) or hand wave it with a soft sci-fi FTL drive.  Most authors go for the latter.  Stuff in soft sci-fi often isn't explained simply because there is no explanation for it.  You can't explain how it works because it really doesn't.  

Science Fantasy, like Star Wars, is essentially fantasy in sci-fi dress.  It's not that hyperdrives aren't explained.  It's the wizards in robes, Chosen Ones and Dark Lords.  The line between soft sci-fi and science fantasy is a fuzzy one.  It's mostly in the themes and tropes rather than the tech or explanations.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;880752BTW, there's a more or less "hard" SF RPG titled Blue Planet. I recall a few people complaining that they skipped the game, because the initial description of space travel (and its conditions) was too much for them.

It's far easier to say bye-bye to "hard" aspect and become a laser katana wielding samurai-sorcerer who doesn't have to deal with the possibility of shitting your lungs out during a space flight. ;]

Then again, those people are exactly what sold me on the game;).

Quote from: AsenRG;881393Then again, those people are exactly what sold me on the game;).

Ladies & Gents, AsenRG: a man who doesn't take the easier path. :D

Quote from: Bren;880952Space: 1999. :rant: B.b.b.but a nuclear waste dumb blew the moon out of orbit and into deep space, without disrupting Moonbase Alpha. WTF?!?

Not only that, but they went past many other solar systems within the lifetime of the characters, implying faster than light travel from a kinetic push.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;881453Ladies & Gents, AsenRG: a man who doesn't take the easier path. :D

No, I always take the easier path, assuming it leads me to my destination. However, sometimes the easier path leads away from what I want to play;).

The lamentations of the pampered gamers being a music to my ears is just a bonus I get to enjoy on some of the roads:D!

From a personal point of view, I like SciFi as much as I like Fantasy and I like many different forms of SciFi. I don't tend to differentiate too much between Hard/Soft/Fantasy/Whatever.

As soon as you have something that doesn't currently exist, you have to allow for a degree of handwaving. The more remote something is from today's technology the more difficult it is to justify, or the easier it is to justify. If you accept that future technology is going to be just an extension of today's then you cannot easily justify massive leaps. However, if you assume that future technology will be radically different from today's then it is easy to accept massive leaps.

When I was a young boy, travelling to the Moon was Science Fiction, now we have sent a spaceship outside the Solar System. We have computers in every house, home systems connected by WiFi, apps on smartphones that do the work of mainframes from the past, 3D printers that produce replacement body parts and so on. We live in a Science Fiction world.

What I think separates SciFi from Fantasy is that in a Scifi setting you look at the new technology and work out how works and how it affects society, in a Fantasy setting the technology is just there as a part of the setting and is skipped over in a second or two.

This thread made me think of a TV tropes page: Mohs Scale of Science Fiction Hardness (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MohsScaleOfScienceFictionHardness).

There's the difference between story and game.

A classic SF story presents a puzzle and a solution -- regardless of whether the reader wins (or even plays) a game of trying to work out an answer independently.

In a traditional RPG, the point of puzzles really is to challenge the players. It might not be fair to expect them to be as brilliant as a fictional hero who has Isaac Asimov to do his thinking for him! Having the solution revealed despite failure can sometimes work -- the PCs might for instance find out the hard way what To Serve Man really means, or get a report from a later expedition to Planet X -- but on other occasions an "unwon reveal" falls flat.

A "what if" that's more of an ongoing element works better than one-shot setups. For example, the Three Laws of Robotics provide endless entertainment when they run into the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Quote from: Elfdart;880718The main difference is that in Star Trek, they throw the word quantum around like Rip Taylor flings confetti (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebiT8mlCvZY), to dupe scientifically illiterate types into thinking there's REAL SCIENCE going on as they fill up time giving a bullshit explanation

So you're arguing that Star Trek is fundamentally a New Age tv show?

Have you seen the episode with the space hippies? ;)

Quote from: RPGPundit;882137So you're arguing that Star Trek is fundamentally a New Age tv show?

Fundamentally? No, though it's there from TNG on. I just think they toss quantum and tachyon and a lot of scientific-sounding jargon into the scripts to whitewash the fact that at its best Star Trek (especially the old series) is a fun adventure yarn and at worst it's half-baked sermons that are about as subtle as those old Davey and Goliath claymation shorts -and about as convincing.  It has the added benefit I described earlier: consoling  some Trekkies about their sour grapes.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;880725The difference is between Science Fiction and Science Fantasy is actually how much detail that's given to the technology.  Science Fiction likes to explain why things work the way they do.

Unless it's something vital to the plot, taking time out to explain how a machine works isn't Science Fiction, it's SHITTY Fiction.

QuoteScience Fantasy simply accepts them as part and parcel of the setting, and never bothers explaining.

You learn a hell of a lot more about the setting and its technology by noticing what is taken for granted by the characters, rather that what they go to the trouble of explaining. For example, the fact that characters in Star Wars might get in a starship and travel tens of thousands of light years in as little as a few hours just as casually as one might hop on a plane in Dallas and travel to New York is quite an eye-opener to anyone who is not a pedantic bore.

I for one got the message quickly in Blade Runner about how fucked up the future could be by the fact that they used human clones as disposable slaves and no one has a problem with it (aside from the replicants themselves); NOT from exposition about cloning where most if not all the "science" is pure horseshit anyway.

Quote from: Elfdart;882174Unless it's something vital to the plot, taking time out to explain how a machine works isn't Science Fiction, it's SHITTY Fiction.

But as a genre, especially on the harder end of science fiction, it is a common feature. This is a genre where the writer can spend time explaining the tech, it is allowable and even expected at times because new technology is often central to the plot. There is a thought experiment aspect to it. It isn't just limited to tech but to other aspects of the setting. I don't know if it makes it bad fiction, but I have to admit I enjoy those explanations of the technology and of the society (I think it just has a tendency in general to give you more of a window into the gears of the setting). I think it is totally okay to not do that. But I find a book that glosses over it has a much different feel than one that doesn't (and I think one thing the explanation often adds is a sense of realness to things). I will read from both ends of spectrum happily. My view is the writer should play to their strengths here. A person with a background or good understanding of science, it makes sense for them to draw on that.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;882248But as a genre, especially on the harder end of science fiction, it is a common feature.

And that is why it's often so boring when it's turned into movies, TV shows and games. Books are a different matter because they allow for more complex thought, but let's keep it real: When I'm looking for something to base my space adventure game on, Flash Gordon will be much higher on my list of influential reading than any form of so-called "hard" sci-fi.

QuoteThis is a genre where the writer can spend time explaining the tech, it is allowable and even expected at times because new technology is often central to the plot. There is a thought experiment aspect to it. It isn't just limited to tech but to other aspects of the setting. I don't know if it makes it bad fiction, but I have to admit I enjoy those explanations of the technology and of the society (I think it just has a tendency in general to give you more of a window into the gears of the setting). I think it is totally okay to not do that. But I find a book that glosses over it has a much different feel than one that doesn't (and I think one thing the explanation often adds is a sense of realness to things). I will read from both ends of spectrum happily. My view is the writer should play to their strengths here. A person with a background or good understanding of science, it makes sense for them to draw on that.

Whatever floats your boat. For me, 99% of the time exposition comes across as playing to the audience and not only kicks down the 4th wall, it shoots SoD all to hell in the bargain.

Technical details get a lot of attention in Tom Clancy's non-SF, Michael Chrichton's semi-SF, Jule's Verne's for-a-moment EF (Engineering Fiction), and EE 'Doc' Smith's space opera.

Technical details are in my experience usually not so gratuitous in most 'harder' SF, more focused on what is really central to the story.  Sheffield's McAndrew stories are considerably about theoretical physics (Kerr-Newman black holes and such), while Bob Forward goes from that kind of thing back to astronautical engineering (which he did for a living), and Sheffield also has further-future novels that are too packed with wonders to explain every detail.

Quote from: Phillip;882284Technical details get a lot of attention in Tom Clancy's non-SF, Michael Chrichton's semi-SF, Jule's Verne's for-a-moment EF (Engineering Fiction), and EE 'Doc' Smith's space opera.

Technical details are in my experience usually not so gratuitous in most 'harder' SF, more focused on what is really central to the story.  Sheffield's McAndrew stories are considerably about theoretical physics (Kerr-Newman black holes and such), while Bob Forward goes from that kind of thing back to astronautical engineering (which he did for a living), and Sheffield also has further-future novels that are too packed with wonders to explain every detail.

I find it varies a lot from book to book and author to author. A lot of technical stuff is often sprinkled intermittently through the story. If we are including explanations of the economy of the culture and its evolution, then I do find in some science fiction you get more blocks of exposition on the stuff. Personally I really enjoy those moments. It doesn't really matter if it is scientific, historical, economic, or whatever to me, it is when the writer takes an idea, applies it to a society, and thinks it through, then kind of walks you through it in chunks. But I find the opposite approach (weaving it more seamlessly into the edges of the story) less engaging for me. Especially if you are dealing with a culture set in the far future, laying out the details in a clear but readable way works for me (whereas hinting, suggesting, working around it, feels a bit coy). It isn't technical in the scientific sense, but Asimov's The End of Eternity did a great job in my view of explaining the architecture and evolution of the time travel institution at the heart of the story. It was spread out through the book as I recall but done in pretty substantial chunks (usually related to what was going on at the moment but definitely exposition if my memory is correct). I really enjoyed those parts of the story and for me they enhanced the plot and made it easier to engage with.

Quote from: Omega;880838Hard SF can be brutally boring if it isnt some sort of war or criminal theme.........

One could also add horror/psychological horror to that list.

I am probably on the other side of the spectrum to those that made that video. Space opera, planetary romance and sword&planet = Awesome in my mind. But I can appreciate hard sci-fi, or realistic sci-fi, also if there is some actual other theme to it. "It is militairy realistic sci!", or " It is a desolate psychological horror on a space ship in a hard sci-fi environment !", those things I can grok. But only "It is very realistic sci-fi with rules to simulate it"= Not interested.

I think the question isn't why fantasy is more popular with gamers than sci-fi, The real question is why is fantasy more popular with gamers than all other genres put together by a ridiculously wide margin?

Sci-fi is pretty popular. It holds it's own nicely compared to horror and supers among roleplaying games and it's way ahead of modern day police/crime, Westerns or pulp style games. But all of these are just also-rans compared to fantasy in our hobby, always have been.

A lot of this is the D&D effect. D&D and its various clones and spin-offs rule the hobby. Take these guys out of the equation and you will find a much more level playing field between fantasy, sci-fi and other genres and that the more popular non-D&D fantasy games like Runequest or The One Ring aren't played a lot more than Star Wars or Call of Cthulhu.

As for why D&D is so insanely more popular than pretty much all other roleplaying games, that's a conversation for some other day.

Quote from: Soylent Green;882405I think the question isn't why fantasy is more popular with gamers than sci-fi, The real question is why is fantasy more popular with gamers than all other genres put together by a ridiculously wide margin?

Because it's much easier to take a pinch this swords & sorcery, a dash of that fantasy, a touch of mythology and folklore with a light dusting of horror plus a generous helping of Hollywood swashbucklers, bake it at 400F and have the end result be something that is edible -and presentable if you apply enough icing to cover up the holes.

Sci-Fi, which features advanced technology, immediately runs into one obstacle: which advanced technology? In your fantasy succotash you could drop Skafloc into Hyperboria, or Conan into Middle Earth, or the Grey Mouser into Poictesme and it's not that much of a difference: you still have guys swinging swords and axes, shooting bows, riding horses, sailing in wooden ships, etc etc etc.

The tech level in Star Wars is orders of magnitude higher than that portrayed in Star Trek, which in turn is vastly more advanced than what is shown in Alien or The Terminator. For example, in Alien, the crew has to hibernate on long voyages, and a generation may pass between the time they leave their home planet and return from LV-426, which is about 39 light years away. In Star Trek, it can take years to travel a single quadrant. In Star Wars they travel over 100,000 light years in a matter of hours. Mixing the Nostramo, the Enterprise and the Millennium Falcon in the same setting raises a bunch of questions that are harder to cover up with icing than who swings a meaner sword or rides a faster horse.

Quote from: Elfdart;883375Because it's much easier to take a pinch this swords & sorcery, a dash of that fantasy, a touch of mythology and folklore with a light dusting of horror plus a generous helping of Hollywood swashbucklers, bake it at 400F and have the end result be something that is edible -and presentable if you apply enough icing to cover up the holes.

Sci-Fi, which features advanced technology, immediately runs into one obstacle: which advanced technology? In your fantasy succotash you could drop Skafloc into Hyperboria, or Conan into Middle Earth, or the Grey Mouser into Poictesme and it's not that much of a difference: you still have guys swinging swords and axes, shooting bows, riding horses, sailing in wooden ships, etc etc etc.

The tech level in Star Wars is orders of magnitude higher than that portrayed in Star Trek, which in turn is vastly more advanced than what is shown in Alien or The Terminator. For example, in Alien, the crew has to hibernate on long voyages, and a generation may pass between the time they leave their home planet and return from LV-426, which is about 39 light years away. In Star Trek, it can take years to travel a single quadrant. In Star Wars they travel over 100,000 light years in a matter of hours. Mixing the Nostramo, the Enterprise and the Millennium Falcon in the same setting raises a bunch of questions that are harder to cover up with icing than who swings a meaner sword or rides a faster horse.

I think the issue is wider than that. Each genre has it's pros and cons. Yes sci-fi can present a technical barrier, but it's a lot of work to sort out your fantasy lore too. Do your trolls turn to stone if exposed to sunlight? How do goblins, sprites and brownies differ? How fast can a flying carpet go and what is its load capacity?

If we were to going for "simple" than every one would be playing games set in the modern day setting, or maybe something like Wild West for a bit more anarchy and stronger cliches.

It is a many faceted equation. That said I still say if one were to factor out D&D and clones, there wouldn't be quite the same popularity gap between fantasy and sci-fi, horror or even supers.

Quote from: Elfdart;883375The tech level in Star Wars is orders of magnitude higher than that portrayed in Star Trek, which in turn is vastly more advanced than what is shown in Alien or The Terminator. For example, in Alien, the crew has to hibernate on long voyages, and a generation may pass between the time they leave their home planet and return from LV-426, which is about 39 light years away. In Star Trek, it can take years to travel a single quadrant. In Star Wars they travel over 100,000 light years in a matter of hours. Mixing the Nostramo, the Enterprise and the Millennium Falcon in the same setting raises a bunch of questions that are harder to cover up with icing than who swings a meaner sword or rides a faster horse.

Clearly you have never read the fan sites dedicated to discussing military conflict between the Star Wars universe and the Star Trek universe.  

Adding the Aliens Franchise would be a delicious snack for those guys.

Quote from: Soylent Green;882405A lot of this is the D&D effect. D&D and its various clones and spin-offs rule the hobby. Take these guys out of the equation and you will find a much more level playing field between fantasy, sci-fi and other genres and that the more popular non-D&D fantasy games like Runequest or The One Ring aren't played a lot more than Star Wars or Call of Cthulhu.

Other fantasy RPGs are just as meh as other genre RPGs are. Add some generic fantasy to the mix (see GURPS Fantasy). More meh. The playing ground seems more level at least.

Quote from: Soylent Green;882405As for why D&D is so insanely more popular than pretty much all other roleplaying games, that's a conversation for some other day.

D&D has the whole wargame thing going for it (each player character is an army of one on a battlemap). And D&D was first, is all.

Quote from: Soylent Green;882405I think the question isn't why fantasy is more popular with gamers than sci-fi, The real question is why is fantasy more popular with gamers than all other genres put together by a ridiculously wide margin?
.

I suspect this gets at the heart of the issue.

Quote from: Soylent Green;883396I think the issue is wider than that. Each genre has it's pros and cons. Yes sci-fi can present a technical barrier, but it's a lot of work to sort out your fantasy lore too. Do your trolls turn to stone if exposed to sunlight? How do goblins, sprites and brownies differ? How fast can a flying carpet go and what is its load capacity?

I think you're missing Elfdart's point. In fantasy, the exact abilities of a troll or the technical difference between sprites and brownies is, ultimately, irrelevant. It's something that might never actually come up in a campaign, and it certainly doesn't effect the campaign at large. What matters is that if you have two "swordsmen on a horse" from two different fantasy worlds, it's generally a safe bet that they're roughly the same thing. Depending on the specific characters, one might be a better fighter, the other might be able to use some minor magics, or maybe one has Migration Period equipment and the other has High Middle Ages, but (barring manga and anime fantasy) you won't hit a massive discrepancy where one of them is essentially a historical medieval knight while the other cuts apart the Moon with his sword, rides literally faster than the speed of light, and kills several gods a day. If you DO hit such a discrepancy, that's a big problem for your worldbuilding.

In contrast, the differences between sci-fi universes can very easily be that distinctive. And it's not just about "power level", either; it's about every level of world-building assumptions. Consider this: you're planning a sci-fi game and, without sending them a dozen-page document on the campaign setting, you ask your players to come up with "a spaceman, you know, someone who flies a spaceship".

So one of them brings Dr. David Bowman from 2001 A Space Odyssey, one brings Han Solo from Star Wars, one Simon Washburne from Firefly, one some guy with a Culture ship from Iain M. Banks' novels, and one a Third Stage Navigator from Dune. Guess what? They all did exactly what you asked, come up with a character concept for a spaceship-flying spaceman. And yet, these characters are so fundamentally different from each other, they're supposed to be nested in so greatly different worlds and societies that it's impossible to set up a game world where all of them are equally feasible as Player Characters. Or even as simple inhabitants of the galaxy.

This lack of shared, "common ground" knowledge and assumption between different examples makes sci-fi a harder sell for a group of gamers, because it requires a lot more work from them to get everyone on the same page for your campaign. In contrast, fantasy requires much less buy-in, because a Lord of the Rings fan and a Conan fan already have pretty much the same idea of a "warrior on horse".

Quote from: Premier;883599So one of them brings Dr. David Bowman from 2001 A Space Odyssey, one brings Han Solo from Star Wars, one Simon Washburne from Firefly, one some guy with a Culture ship from Iain M. Banks' novels, and one a Third Stage Navigator from Dune.

Am I the only one who thinks that this sound like a pretty fucking awesome campaign? ;)

I'm starting to think that maybe Rifts scarred me for life.

Quote from: The Butcher;883631Am I the only one who thinks that this sound like a pretty fucking awesome campaign? ;)

I'm starting to think that maybe Rifts scarred me for life.

Actually just the sheer interaction possibilities between the crews of the Falcon and Firefly would be so awesome it would create Rifts.

Han Solo and Mal
Chewie and Wash
Luke and Kaylee
Chewie and Kaylee
R2 and Kaylee
3PO and Simon
Kenobi and Book
R2 and River
Zoe and Solo (and Wash)
Leia and Inara (and Luke, Han, and Mal) Jesus Wept
Now toss in Saffron and Lando

The Series/Soap Opera would run for 75 years.

Yes, Rifts scarred you for life, or as I prefer to call it "Opened the Doors of Perception."

Quote from: Premier;883599I think you're missing Elfdart's point. In fantasy, the exact abilities of a troll or the technical difference between sprites and brownies is, ultimately, irrelevant. It's something that might never actually come up in a campaign, and it certainly doesn't effect the campaign at large. What matters is that if you have two "swordsmen on a horse" from two different fantasy worlds, it's generally a safe bet that they're roughly the same thing. Depending on the specific characters, one might be a better fighter, the other might be able to use some minor magics, or maybe one has Migration Period equipment and the other has High Middle Ages, but (barring manga and anime fantasy) you won't hit a massive discrepancy where one of them is essentially a historical medieval knight while the other cuts apart the Moon with his sword, rides literally faster than the speed of light, and kills several gods a day. If you DO hit such a discrepancy, that's a big problem for your worldbuilding.

In contrast, the differences between sci-fi universes can very easily be that distinctive. And it's not just about "power level", either; it's about every level of world-building assumptions. Consider this: you're planning a sci-fi game and, without sending them a dozen-page document on the campaign setting, you ask your players to come up with "a spaceman, you know, someone who flies a spaceship".

So one of them brings Dr. David Bowman from 2001 A Space Odyssey, one brings Han Solo from Star Wars, one Simon Washburne from Firefly, one some guy with a Culture ship from Iain M. Banks' novels, and one a Third Stage Navigator from Dune. Guess what? They all did exactly what you asked, come up with a character concept for a spaceship-flying spaceman. And yet, these characters are so fundamentally different from each other, they're supposed to be nested in so greatly different worlds and societies that it's impossible to set up a game world where all of them are equally feasible as Player Characters. Or even as simple inhabitants of the galaxy.

This lack of shared, "common ground" knowledge and assumption between different examples makes sci-fi a harder sell for a group of gamers, because it requires a lot more work from them to get everyone on the same page for your campaign. In contrast, fantasy requires much less buy-in, because a Lord of the Rings fan and a Conan fan already have pretty much the same idea of a "warrior on horse".

But that kind of thing can even happen in a fantasy campaign. I think most groups go through a period where they establish the 'physics' and the 'reality level' of their campaign. I notice this a lot the first few sessions of a new campaign (particularly if you have new players in the group), where everyone kind of comes to the table with different assumptions about the kinds of characters that are expected, the kinds of schemes and tactics that should yield fruit (can the players blow up a whole fleet of ships with some well placed barrels of oil and a flaming arrow, or is that more likely to just illuminate their presence and maybe set fire to a single ship). You have that spectrum in fantasy just like you do in science fiction (big different between a game based more on Game of Thrones versus Dragonlance).

Quote from: Spike;883537Clearly you have never read the fan sites dedicated to discussing military conflict between the Star Wars universe and the Star Trek universe.  

Ha, ha, ha! :rotfl:

I ran a crossover adventure between our group's Star Trek characters and our  Star Wars characters. It worked well.

Much later, I came across some of the fan sites you refer to. While there are a few interesting ideas and comments, mostly they sound like a bunch of knuckleheads.

Quote from: Premier;883599...one brings Han Solo from Star Wars, one Simon Washburne from Firefly...

The tech is a bit different (galaxy hopping vs. hopping in the same busy star system), but those guys seem like they would fit from a personality and capabilities standpoint.

Quote from: CRKrueger;883634Actually just the sheer interaction possibilities between the crews of the Falcon and Firefly would be so awesome it would create Rifts.

Han Solo and Mal
Chewie and Wash
Luke and Kaylee
Chewie and Kaylee
R2 and Kaylee
3PO and Simon
Kenobi and Book
R2 and River
Zoe and Solo (and Wash)
Leia and Inara (and Luke, Han, and Mal) Jesus Wept
Now toss in Saffron and Lando

The Series/Soap Opera would run for 75 years.

Yes, Rifts scarred you for life, or as I prefer to call it "Opened the Doors of Perception."

:confused: I can't tell. When you say "interaction possibilities" are you talking about the RPG gaming possibilities (which do sound interesting) or are you talking about writing fanfiction and slash fanfiction?

Quote from: Bren;883642The tech is a bit different (galaxy hopping vs. hopping in the same busy star system), but those guys seem like they would fit from a personality and capabilities standpoint.

:confused: I can't tell. When you say "interaction possibilities" are you talking about the RPG gaming possibilities (which do sound interesting) or are you talking about writing fanfiction and slash fanfiction?

I started thinking about two people playing Solo and Mal and the fun that could erupt from people playing those characters.  Where they'd be alike, where they'd clash, etc.

Then I started coming up with some other characters that might be fun to roleplay together.

Then I started thinking what if there was an alternate universe where Joss Whedon was writing this crossover series between Star Wars and Firefly and things just kept going.

Total Stream of Consciousness.  It's a Rifts thing, we're scarred for life. :D

Quote from: CRKrueger;883644I started thinking about two people playing Solo and Mal and the fun that could erupt from people playing those characters.  Where they'd be alike, where they'd clash, etc.

That's what I first thought you were thinking, then I had that other thought. Apparently I am scarred by the Internet.

Quote from: Bren;883649That's what I first thought you were thinking, then I had that other thought. Apparently I am scarred by the Internet.

The internet pretty much proves that CoC Sanity rules are how the human mind works. :D

Quote from: Premier;883599So one of them brings Dr. David Bowman from 2001 A Space Odyssey, one brings Han Solo from Star Wars, one Simon Washburne from Firefly, one some guy with a Culture ship from Iain M. Banks' novels, and one a Third Stage Navigator from Dune. Guess what? They all did exactly what you asked, come up with a character concept for a spaceship-flying spaceman. And yet, these characters are so fundamentally different from each other, they're supposed to be nested in so greatly different worlds and societies that it's impossible to set up a game world where all of them are equally feasible as Player Characters. Or even as simple inhabitants of the galaxy.

This lack of shared, "common ground" knowledge and assumption between different examples makes sci-fi a harder sell for a group of gamers, because it requires a lot more work from them to get everyone on the same page for your campaign. In contrast, fantasy requires much less buy-in, because a Lord of the Rings fan and a Conan fan already have pretty much the same idea of a "warrior on horse".

I think that space opera as exemplified by popular media like Star Wars, Star Trek, Firefly, Guardians of the Galaxy, Battlestar Galactica, and others are close enough that the assumptions fit together pretty well. They're a fairly continuous genre, with a lot of commonality.

Yes, Iain Banks' Culture and Herbert's Dune are different - but fantasy is often very different as well.

You can get a bunch of similar characters if you draw from stuff like Lord of the Rings, but fantasy is vastly broader than that - encompassing The Wizard of Oz, Labyrinth, The Princess Bride, Pan's Labyrinth, Percy Jackson, Harry Potter, Narnia, Beauty and the Beast, Sandman, and further.

I think the distinction here isn't fantasy vs. sci-fi. Sci-fi is roughly as popular as every other genre except for the genre of D&D's medieval fantasy. I think that has to do with a particular combination of archetypes, dungeons as a structure for adventures, and more.

Quote from: Premier;883599Consider this: you're planning a sci-fi game and, without sending them a dozen-page document on the campaign setting, you ask your players to come up with "a spaceman, you know, someone who flies a spaceship".

Typical rookie GM mistake. More info about the game needs to be told to the players first before they create their characters. Tell the players which sci-fi movie your game will be like. Then players will know what kind of characters are appropriate. The same goes for fantasy games, too. Otherwise, players end up in a fantasy game that is just meh and not worth role-playing in (just filling in their character sheets with XP instead).

D&D itself became a set of stereotypes that went into a feedback loop with later genre-fantasy fiction.  There hasn't been quite so thoroughly incestuous and homogenizing a game-literature loop in SF.

Quote from: Phillip;883717D&D itself became a set of stereotypes that went into a feedback loop with later genre-fantasy fiction.  There hasn't been quite so thoroughly incestuous and homogenizing a game-literature loop in SF.

The cross pollination of Star Wars' novels and WEG's game materials along with the adoption of a lot of game info for the new animated series doesn't even come close.

Quote from: Spike;883537Clearly you have never read the fan sites dedicated to discussing military conflict between the Star Wars universe and the Star Trek universe.  

That's funny, considering the fact that I've been a regular one of them (SDN) for almost twelve years, and have frequented others as well. For a quick summary of the differences in tech levels between the two:

LINK (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/FiveMinutes.html)

QuoteAdding the Aliens Franchise would be a delicious snack for those guys.

That's not really saying much since the marines would have been able to wipe out the xenomorphs in short order were it not for the bungling of the officer in charge.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;883635But that kind of thing can even happen in a fantasy campaign. I think most groups go through a period where they establish the 'physics' and the 'reality level' of their campaign. I notice this a lot the first few sessions of a new campaign (particularly if you have new players in the group), where everyone kind of comes to the table with different assumptions about the kinds of characters that are expected, the kinds of schemes and tactics that should yield fruit (can the players blow up a whole fleet of ships with some well placed barrels of oil and a flaming arrow, or is that more likely to just illuminate their presence and maybe set fire to a single ship). You have that spectrum in fantasy just like you do in science fiction (big different between a game based more on Game of Thrones versus Dragonlance).

But with sci-fi you're talking about orders of magnitude when it comes to differences in technology. To do a crossover between Trek, Wars, Alien, Blade Runner, etc you either have to level the field by weakening or strengthening the technologies OR you'll need to explain why the Galactic Empire hasn't already conquered the Alpha Quadrant, let alone Earth in 2017. You have something similar in comic book crossovers like Superman vs Spider-Man, where Spidey's powers had to be turned up to 11 by red or yellow sunlight in order to put him on Superman's level, otherwise it's like Bambi vs Godzilla (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-wUdetAAlY).

The only area in fantasy where you run into similar issues is magic and guess what -it also becomes a serious hurdle, hence all the wrangling about Gandalf being "only" 5th level. Everything else is more or less compatible in most fantasy settings.

Quote from: Elfdart;883954But with sci-fi you're talking about orders of magnitude when it comes to differences in technology. To do a crossover between Trek, Wars, Alien, Blade Runner, etc you either have to level the field by weakening or strengthening the technologies OR you'll need to explain why the Galactic Empire hasn't already conquered the Alpha Quadrant, let alone Earth in 2017. You have something similar in comic book crossovers like Superman vs Spider-Man, where Spidey's powers had to be turned up to 11 by red or yellow sunlight in order to put him on Superman's level, otherwise it's like Bambi vs Godzilla (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-wUdetAAlY).

The only area in fantasy where you run into similar issues is magic and guess what -it also becomes a serious hurdle, hence all the wrangling about Gandalf being "only" 5th level. Everything else is more or less compatible in most fantasy settings.

This is only true if you hugely restrict your fantasy to stuff close to Lord of the Rings.

Fantasy as a whole is not remotely compatible. I cited before The Wizard of Oz, Labyrinth, The Princess Bride, Pan's Labyrinth, Percy Jackson, Harry Potter, Narnia, Beauty and the Beast, and Sandman. If you think that Star Wars vs. Star Trek is bad - try mixing Redwall with Percy Jackson, where one character is an Olympian and one is... a mouse.

The SW vs. ST stuff I always thought was stupid.  Jackass one who doesn't know what a Gigawatt is puts 5.7GW because he thinks it's big, some other jackass puts 4000GW because he thinks it's big and you end up with Jackass #3 claiming that objectively Slave one can shoot a hole through 18 Borg Cubes.  It's just Idiocy.

Obviously SW methods of FTL are superior (but this is variable.  A New Hope isn't the same scale as the prequels and the entire ST series up to that point doesn't match Khan v.2.0 when you can get from Earth to the Klingon Homeworld in like 12 minutes.)

Also ST has no capability to one-shot a planet. (Unless of course you count a Q or Organian snapping their fingers, in any case the Federation or Klingons don't, who knows if the Romulans ever made a Plasma Superweapon).

Movable Death Star you can't catch seems like Game Over.  Then again, not sure what good a Death Star or Star Destroyer is when you can beam live photon torpedoes onto the bridge of one. (I know ST shields stop beaming, I have no knowledge of SW shields doing the same, since why would they develop that capability without transporters).

However, what does the Federation's ability to harness anti-matter really mean, who the fuck knows, no one who ever penned anything Star Wars or Star Trek does.

In the end, neither group of writers actually intended to create canon, so...they didn't, and the fact that Lucas decided to get free marketing and money from the EU rather than squash it doesn't create "canon" either.

It's a circle jerk.

It amounts to Hulk vs. Superman, Superman vs. Galactus, Doomsday vs. Galactus, whatever.

Quote from: jhkim;883974This is only true if you hugely restrict your fantasy to stuff close to Lord of the Rings.

Fantasy as a whole is not remotely compatible. I cited before The Wizard of Oz, Labyrinth, The Princess Bride, Pan's Labyrinth, Percy Jackson, Harry Potter, Narnia, Beauty and the Beast, and Sandman. If you think that Star Wars vs. Star Trek is bad - try mixing Redwall with Percy Jackson, where one character is an Olympian and one is... a mouse.

Originally fantasy really was all speculative fiction, period.  Then it got broken down into "speculative stuff that's never going to happen, but we like to think we could do" vs. "Speculative stuff we think is never going to happen", ie. Science Fiction vs. Fantasy.  Then Fantasy became even more constricted again, and again, driven not by writers, but by marketers and so did Sci-Fi,  so now we have "Military Sci-fi" and "Female masturbatory fantasy using Vampires and Werewolves as analogues for the different kinds of guys they want to fuck" and if you want to write something different, you'd better have to put the years in as an acceptable genre writer who sticks to the rules before they let you play outside the lines.

Fantasy, which should be the most widely varied and...fantastical genre, is really 879 separate straightjackets at this point.  Pick one.

Quote from: CRKrueger;884060...and "Female masturbatory fantasy using Vampires and Werewolves as analogues for the different kinds of guys they want to fuck"...

AKA 'Urban Fantasy'.

Wish I was joking...

I've seen a lot of people have a lot of warring definitions of just what constitutes "true" Science Fiction.

Quote from: RPGPundit;884465I've seen a lot of people have a lot of warring definitions of just what constitutes "true" Science Fiction.

Defining SF is fine. Throwing in the word "true" is usually a serious warning sign, in my experience. When someone starts blithering about "true SF" it generally means I'm about to get an earful of "My SF is better than your SF" bullshit.

Edited to add: this applies to most other topics as well. Self-appointed experts defining "true" RPGs, "true" , or "true" are seldom worth listening to.

Quote from: Elfdart;883950That's not really saying much since the marines would have been able to wipe out the xenomorphs in short order were it not for the bungling of the officer in charge.

That's highly arguable.

Were it an open field and Xenomorphs would run in the direction of Marines, they could've perhaps survive this encounter. Unfortunately for Marines, Xenomorphs are "smart" enough to use the surroundings to their advantage, rely on stealth, from some sort of hive-like tactics and so on, and so forth.

Also, the rule of a single ninja vs a hoard seems to apply. ;)

Yes, the Law of Conservation of Ninja.  You aren't the first to point out how the Aliens appear to work under a similar principle. Of course, they do 'wear' black and like to sneak a lot...

Quote from: Spike;884494Yes, the Law of Conservation of Ninja.

So that's how it's called. Thanks. Details are my Achilles heel. :)

Quote from: Spike;884494You aren't the first to point out how the Aliens appear to work under a similar principle. Of course, they do 'wear' black and like to sneak a lot...

Exactly.

Let's not forget that ALiens Universe is already very vast, consisting of numerous works of fiction, some contradicting each other, or at least presenting a bit different vision. Cameron's idea of hive-like society, one that's not above launching bullrush berserk attack (and casualties be damned) wasn't featured in Scott's (the original) works.

Ultimately it's up to people to choose what version of Aliens they are talking about. ;)

The Alien's Marines not only had a moron for a commander, they were morons themselves.  I mean, seriously, did they not load up the specs of the ship they were going to raid?

Then again, if they were smart, then the movie would have been over in about 15 minutes from the start...

Quote from: Christopher Brady;884503The Alien's Marines not only had a moron for a commander, they were morons themselves.  I mean, seriously, did they not load up the specs of the ship they were going to raid?

I'm sorry, what ship would that be? :hmm:

Quote from: Christopher Brady;884503Then again, if they were smart, then the movie would have been over in about 15 minutes from the start...

Could you expand it a bit?

Quote from: JesterRaiin;884505I'm sorry, what ship would that be? :hmm:

Sorry, it's been decades since I saw it, the colony, not ship.  I think I was mixing Aliens and 3 together.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;884505Could you expand it a bit?

A crack team of marines would have gone in with flame throwers and high explosives, because they would have read the debriefing and saw that if this was the place where Ripley encountered the eggs, it wouldn't matter if the Corporation didn't believe her, the military would take NO chances.  If there's one flaw most militaries have is that they tend to over prepare.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;884566Sorry, it's been decades since I saw it, the colony, not ship.  I think I was mixing Aliens and 3 together.

No harm done. I simply doubted my own memory. ;)

Quote from: Christopher Brady;884566A crack team of marines would have gone in with flame throwers and high explosives, because they would have read the debriefing and saw that if this was the place where Ripley encountered the eggs, it wouldn't matter if the Corporation didn't believe her, the military would take NO chances.  If there's one flaw most militaries have is that they tend to over prepare.

Hmmm... :hmm:

Observe that:

• While this is military operation, it happens on Corporate ground. It means that military got only as much info as the Corporation decided to share. Burke, Corporate delegate says it out loud: "You're mere grunts". It means that to his employees, Marines are merely... assets. Pawns, accessories. In fact, think about it: the Corporation had a dossier on everyone. Why didn't they insist on a leader more experienced than Lt. Gorman? It's entirely possible that this whole disaster was orchestrated on a higher level, and everyone (including Burke) was expendable, sent there only to test how soldiers would fare against possible bio-weapon.
  
• Marines fell victims of their own legend. Strongest, toughest mofos on this side of the galaxy and all that testosterone. Vasquez dismisses Ripley's fears as "just bugs". Everyone laughs. In addition, in Director's Cut edition of Aliens, there's a scene where Hudson brags about all equipment they have at their disposal. They are clearly overconfident. Screw Gorman - their leader. There's Sgt. Apone and Col. "reasonable cool guy" Hicks. Neither thought it's very important to invest more time into additional research.
  
• Nobody trusts Ripley until it's too late, and from the point of view of everyone onboard of "Sullaco" she has no authority. After all, she's just a woman with unclear past and mental issues, neither a marine, nor an important Company delegate.

All this (and more) led to the disaster, so I don't think Lt. Gorman is the sole responsible for Marines' defeat. :)

Fantasy dominates because you can grab a bunch of dudes, sit them down, and run a fantasy came cold and stupid with reliable success. All that might be asked are race/class (or equivalent) options, so long as you go with a ruleset that everyone knows.

Science Fiction requires preparation because that shit stems from contextual elements in order to achieve its genre-defining potential. This is why SF RPGs either devolve into fantasy-in-SF-drag, or are reduced to the only playable elements that stand out (because the rest of it is unplayable wanking), and as such reliably fail. Star Wars fits the former, much of the time, and we all know of mecha SF games that devolve to wargame campaigns because mech action is the only fucking game part in the entire set-up that stands out as being remotely fun SF stuff.

In short, the problem with SF gaming is that the core element of the genre doesn't work well (if at all) with medium of tabletop role-playing games due to said element being inherently external to the table action- much like why horror gaming routinely sucks harder than Cthulhu having a bad day.

Tabletop RPGs are at their best when they focus on what is external to the characters--action, adventure, combat, etc.--because that's playable and enjoyable for people in general. If it involves internal stuff, or otherwise limits who at the table is in the action, that's when TRPGs go off the rails.

"Exploring the implications of a posited technological or scientific development." is internal. It works best in drama (written or performed). It's terrible as gameplay, even in videogames, and falls into the stuff that gets skipped until it's directly and immediately relevant to the action at hand.

Fantasy? None of that shit. "There's treasure in them thar hills, and we aim to get it." works, and as that is entirely within the wargame-derivative scope and scale of TRPGs it's inherently and easily playable effectively even by utter noobs. No need for anything that, in a videogame, gets routinely skipped or ignored. Just get on with the action; specific contest is irrelevant.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;884704Fantasy? None of that shit. "There's treasure in them thar hills, and we aim to get it." works, (...)

No, it doesn't!

Nowadays it's "everyone pay attention to my 150 years old, chibi-looking, half-Drow half-draconic half-Kender and half-Siren, extravert, transgender, non aligned, Ranger/Assasin/Paladin/Cleric of Mangina special snowflake character, also here's my list of "no-no" for the game: the most important is that I have to win and can't be ever bothered with even an allusion of failed test".

Yep, that's what fantasy is all about nowadays.

...Ahem...

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;884704"Exploring the implications of a posited technological or scientific development." is internal. It works best in drama (written or performed). It's terrible as gameplay, even in videogames, and falls into the stuff that gets skipped until it's directly and immediately relevant to the action at hand.

Just to clarify what this means, how did you feel about the video game Soma for example?

Quote from: JesterRaiin;884714No, it doesn't!

Nowadays it's "everyone pay attention to my 150 years old, chibi-looking, half-Drow half-draconic half-Kender and half-Siren, extravert, transgender, non aligned, Ranger/Assasin/Paladin/Cleric of Mangina special snowflake character, also here's my list of "no-no" for the game: the most important is that I have to win and can't be ever bothered with even an allusion of failed test".

Yep, that's what fantasy is all about nowadays.

...Ahem...

Exalted is not the entire market, you know.

well i finally watched the video........

and its exactly what i expected badly written extra credits bullshit where we cant even be bothered to get are terminology right

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;884721Just to clarify what this means, how did you feel about the video game Soma for example?

Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem is an attempt at proper horror, due to the way the game flat-out cheated to trick the player into reacting, replicating (as best as the Gamecube allowed) the sorts of craft tools that written and spoken horror use to get into the reader/listener's head. That's internal.

It's also one of the reasons for why few follow-ups are done, as it's usually a thing that only works once- and only until the reviews come out. Spec Ops: The Line was one such follow-up (inspired by Conrad's Heart of Darkness), but most gamers didn't give a shit about the intended horror; they just fulfilled mission objectives in order to complete the game, maybe with a "Well, that's fucked up." here and there, but otherwise completely ignoring it. (Much the same is true for reports of Darkness playthroughs.)

The videogame medium, despite being perfect for making spectacles of sight and sound, just doesn't work due to the completely different approach the audience has. It's well-known that common gamers are objective-focused, especially when they're playing, and as such they often become resistant or immune to such things in gaming. That same mentality applies to TRPG gamers, as Dancey found out when he got the survey data over 15 years ago (so this is a known issue).

Why the hell do you think D&D--in its default form--remains the RPG paradigm by default? Because that's what is (a) most playable, and (b) has no requirements for prior knowledge (can be done stupid) or preparation (can be done cold) so you can just get on with it already. Gamers, on the whole, are too busy getting shit done to bother with being scared. It just gets in the way- and the position of (and jokes about) Call of Cthulhu show it.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;884867Exalted is not the entire market, you know.

I know it, you know it, they don't. :)

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;884909Gamers, on the whole, are too busy getting shit done to bother with being scared. It just gets in the way- and the position of (and jokes about) Call of Cthulhu show it.

IME it has more to do with a LOT of people not being all that fond of horror. They might like a bit of spooky stuff on Halloween but they're not generally into being scared. Even horror 'fans' are often in it for some other element... gore, violence, 'gothic' atmosphere. They alleviate the tension with bad jokes.

Quote from: CRKrueger;884059The SW vs. ST stuff I always thought was stupid.  Jackass one who doesn't know what a Gigawatt is puts 5.7GW because he thinks it's big, some other jackass puts 4000GW because he thinks it's big and you end up with Jackass #3 claiming that objectively Slave one can shoot a hole through 18 Borg Cubes.  It's just Idiocy.

The calculations foe SW tech come from Curtis Saxton (an astrophysicist) and Michael Wong (a mechanical engineer) -not exactly what I'd consider jackasses.

QuoteObviously SW methods of FTL are superior (but this is variable.  A New Hope isn't the same scale as the prequels and the entire ST series up to that point doesn't match Khan v.2.0 when you can get from Earth to the Klingon Homeworld in like 12 minutes.)

ANH is exactly the same scale as the Prequels: a ship can travel from the outer rim of the galaxy to the center in a matter of hours, as shown in ROTS. As for the other example you gave, I think we're all better served by avoiding anything J.J. Abrams has had a hand in. He's the Vanilla Ice of film.

Quote from: RPGPundit;884465I've seen a lot of people have a lot of warring definitions of just what constitutes "true" Science Fiction.

That's because a lot of people are extremely stupid.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;884573No harm done. I simply doubted my own memory. ;)



Hmmm... :hmm:

Observe that:

• While this is military operation, it happens on Corporate ground. It means that military got only as much info as the Corporation decided to share. Burke, Corporate delegate says it out loud: "You're mere grunts". It means that to his employees, Marines are merely... assets. Pawns, accessories. In fact, think about it: the Corporation had a dossier on everyone. Why didn't they insist on a leader more experienced than Lt. Gorman? It's entirely possible that this whole disaster was orchestrated on a higher level, and everyone (including Burke) was expendable, sent there only to test how soldiers would fare against possible bio-weapon.
  
• Marines fell victims of their own legend. Strongest, toughest mofos on this side of the galaxy and all that testosterone. Vasquez dismisses Ripley's fears as "just bugs". Everyone laughs. In addition, in Director's Cut edition of Aliens, there's a scene where Hudson brags about all equipment they have at their disposal. They are clearly overconfident. Screw Gorman - their leader. There's Sgt. Apone and Col. "reasonable cool guy" Hicks. Neither thought it's very important to invest more time into additional research.
  
• Nobody trusts Ripley until it's too late, and from the point of view of everyone onboard of "Sullaco" she has no authority. After all, she's just a woman with unclear past and mental issues, neither a marine, nor an important Company delegate.

All this (and more) led to the disaster, so I don't think Lt. Gorman is the sole responsible for Marines' defeat. :)

He's the commanding officer -he's responsible. Not taking Ripley seriously when she's the only source of intelligence is a blunder of Custer-like proportions, and with similar results.

Quote from: Elfdart;884978He's the commanding officer -he's responsible.

You have your scapegoat. Hooray!

I see the Big (or at least bigger) Picture. Yay!

:cool:

Quote from: Elfdart;884977The calculations foe SW tech come from Curtis Saxton (an astrophysicist) and Michael Wong (a mechanical engineer) -not exactly what I'd consider jackasses.

The problem with calculations like that is, they're based on nothing, really.   A beam of light coming off a Star Destroyer bounces the Falcon around, in a different movie, it blows a piece off an MC Cruiser.  Why?  Because it was supposed to.  No one at Lucas Arts ever stopped to say "Gee, you think this shot should have done more or less damage based on what we know of the GW capabilities of a turbolaser?"  oh wait, one intern did, before they were replaced.

The only thing you could really point to is the Death Star, but how much power is needed to actually destroy a planet?

The problem is, I don't care how much of a scientist you are, you're taking something that was done simply because the plot or scene needed it and trying to make the truth of what was done there, say something objective about the setting, and then extrapolate from there.

Well, we know they have Letter A, so they must have Letter B, etc... therefore Hamlet.  :nono:

For example, Mr. Saxton claims the Empire collects energy by shooting lasers through the ergosphere of a Black Hole...  I don't care how many letters you have after your name, that's an asspull.

Since the Empire is shown to possess near limitless energy, then they must, therefore be able to create near limitless energy, therefore they have to have these theoretical technologies, which means then they must have other theoretical technologies... :hand:

Pick a sci-fi fandom.  You get hooked as kids, you grow up and then make the shit Serious Business (because at that point it is serious business, because there's serious money).  So you look at everything put to page and film, and use those as Ex Post Facto canon creation.

Now, take "universe made of collection of retroactive asspulls A", and then attempt to objectively prove it's dominance over "universe made of collection of retroactive asspulls B" and "universe made of collection of retroactive asspulls C".

That's every Star Wars vs. Star Trek vs. Imperium of Man thread...ever.

The REAL answer is, the Federation would curbstomp the Empire and the Imperium every single time no matter what.

Why?  They're the good guys.


..and then the Tyranids, which are probably the Universes Immune System as created by {whoever} would scour all galaxies clean, leaving behind just enough organic material to start life over again...see you again in a Trillion years. :cool:

Quote from: RPGPundit;884465I've seen a lot of people have a lot of warring definitions of just what constitutes "true" Science Fiction.

If my wife doesn't hate it then it isn't Science Fiction.

Quote from: soltakss;884998If my wife doesn't hate it then it isn't Science Fiction.

for give me for asking  but im curious why???

I didn't mind the video. I got what they were trying to say, I just kind of found the distinction pointless for the most part. I would generally only make the distinction between science fiction and science fantasy if I was trying to describe a preference for one or the other, but honestly I don't. I'm as good watching Farscape as I am reading HG Wells. I enjoyed Primer and I like DrWho. I don't like Star Trek in general, but thats nothing to do with its genre. But if a person really liked one, but didnt care for the other, I could see why establishing terminology for the distinction might be useful to them.

As far as why "true science fiction games are rarer", however, I find the question to be a bit off-putting, even if I accept the terminology. It's just the "true" part that fills my head full of angry Scotsmen. Its simply not a good way of expressing it, because it comes across as denigrating. Sure that's just a quirk of language, but being aware of how the nuances of language affect how an idea is perceived/interpreted is a skill that grows in importance every day as face-to-face communication becomes rarer and people fill in the gaps for the sub-language of "tone".

Its not that I wouldn't (or didn't) extend the benefit of the doubt, more that I'm acutely aware that most people online won't do that. If anything, the opposite.

So, instead, I'd phrase it as why are "hard sci-fi" games rarer than "fantasy sci-fi" games? And the answer is simple: the same reason historical games are rarer than pseudo-medieval fantasy games: its less work. Its an answer thats been given often in this thread, and its simple, but its correct. Its easier to pull shit out of one's ass than adhere to reality/speculative reality. And I'm not sure for most players the difference is worth the effort. That said, I don't think "hard sci-fi" games are that rare, certainly not as rare as historical rpgs.

Quote from: kosmos1214;885104for give me for asking  but im curious why???

She hates anything SciFi with a vengeance. I love SciFi. It makes going to the cinema interesting ...

She also hates RPGs as well ...

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;884909The videogame medium, despite being perfect for making spectacles of sight and sound, just doesn't work due to the completely different approach the audience has.

Mostly true, though I have to admit Doom 3 had a sequence with bloody footprints that gave me the creeps as good as any ghost story. That's about the only example I can remember, though.

Quote from: The Butcher;880809Without getting into Star Trek vs. Star Wars?

SF games are rare because SF as a genre has been dwindling in pop culture visibility for the last 10 years at least. Star Wars and Star Trek have been pressing on for decades, in one form or another, but none of their modern incarnations has had the sheer popular impact of the originals, and to the best of my knowledge no other IP has come close.

Meanwhile, on the fantasy front, we've had Tolkien movies, a runaway hit ASoIaF TV series and even Shannara is getting a live-action version. Four-color superheroics are a Big Thing in Hollywood. But very little "straight" SF.

With films like The Martian and Gravity (despite their flaws) this seems to be changing.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;884714No, it doesn't!

Nowadays it's "everyone pay attention to my 150 years old, chibi-looking, half-Drow half-draconic half-Kender and half-Siren, extravert, transgender, non aligned, Ranger/Assasin/Paladin/Cleric of Mangina special snowflake character, also here's my list of "no-no" for the game: the most important is that I have to win and can't be ever bothered with even an allusion of failed test".

Yep, that's what fantasy is all about nowadays.

...Ahem...

You're gaming with a weird crowd....

Quote from: camazotz;885305You're gaming with a weird crowd....

Tales I could tell... :boohoo:

Quote from: soltakss;885193She hates anything SciFi with a vengeance. I love SciFi. It makes going to the cinema interesting ...

She also hates RPGs as well ...

.......... ouch and why dos she have this random hate of sci fi

im honestly having trouble under standing this

Quote from: kosmos1214;885340.......... ouch and why dos she have this random hate of sci fi

Probably because I like it!

Quote from: kosmos1214;885340im honestly having trouble under standing this

You're not the only one.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;880752BTW, there's a more or less "hard" SF RPG titled Blue Planet. I recall a few people complaining that they skipped the game, because the initial description of space travel (and its conditions) was too much for them.

It's far easier to say bye-bye to "hard" aspect and become a laser katana wielding samurai-sorcerer who doesn't have to deal with the possibility of shitting your lungs out during a space flight. ;]

The typical BP game didn't feature space travel at all. It wasn't space opera - it was "firm" planetary science fiction.

And dolphins, when not operating underwater (on the waterworld...), were "riggers," to borrow a term from a particular cyberpunk game. They participated in the action via sophisticated (by 1997 sci-fi standards) RAVs. Given the technology, biological constraints weren't very important.

In hindsight, I think the biggest mistake we made with BP (which did, BTW, enjoy a measure of success for an independent game at the time) is that we created a really complex world, and then, instead of giving GMs and players published campaigns, we added even more setting material. We made it appealing to readers and collectors, but very hard to run and play a campaign.

Quote from: Greg Benage;885505In hindsight, I think the biggest mistake we made with BP (which did, BTW, enjoy a measure of success for an independent game at the time) is that we created a really complex world, and then, instead of giving GMs and players published campaigns, we added even more setting material. We made it appealing to readers and collectors, but very hard to run and play a campaign.

I loved the Blue Planet setting, but I never got a quorum of other gamers interested. I think some more clearly defined campaigns would have helped.

Even without published campaigns, at least have pregenerated characters and a sample adventure in the core book. (I have the first edition - maybe that was addressed in later editions?)

Quote from: Greg Benage;885505The typical BP game didn't feature space travel at all. It wasn't space opera - it was "firm" planetary science fiction.

And dolphins, when not operating underwater (on the waterworld...), were "riggers," to borrow a term from a particular cyberpunk game. They participated in the action via sophisticated (by 1997 sci-fi standards) RAVs. Given the technology, biological constraints weren't very important.

In hindsight, I think the biggest mistake we made with BP (which did, BTW, enjoy a measure of success for an independent game at the time) is that we created a really complex world, and then, instead of giving GMs and players published campaigns, we added even more setting material. We made it appealing to readers and collectors, but very hard to run and play a campaign.

Heavy Gear has a similar problem.

The problem was this: "If we're not doing shit with Gears, then why are we doing this game and not playing a real cop/military/etc. game?"

In other words, what matters in SF gaming is that the default paradigm for campaign play rests upon the SF element as the cornerstone around which everything else depends. Take that away, and you have the "Other Genre in SF Drag" issue.

A gaming setting has to be built with out-of-the-box play foremost in mind; that's the consistent message that failures and successes alike present in tabletop RPGs (and this carries over to PC and console RPGs). Games are tools, and tools with no obvious application get dumped for those that do.

Quote from: Greg Benage;885505The typical BP game didn't feature space travel at all. It wasn't space opera - it was "firm" planetary science fiction. (...)

It's not about what BP is, it's what made those certain people skip it - the moment they've read the description of a space travel, they were already "oh, it's not the game for me". :rolleyes:

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;885528Heavy Gear has a similar problem.

The problem was this: "If we're not doing shit with Gears, then why are we doing this game and not playing a real cop/military/etc. game?"

In other words, what matters in SF gaming is that the default paradigm for campaign play rests upon the SF element as the cornerstone around which everything else depends. Take that away, and you have the "Other Genre in SF Drag" issue.

A gaming setting has to be built with out-of-the-box play foremost in mind; that's the consistent message that failures and successes alike present in tabletop RPGs (and this carries over to PC and console RPGs). Games are tools, and tools with no obvious application get dumped for those that do.

the old battletech rpgs have this problem to compounded by the fact that the they have some rolls made with a d10 but are trying to mate with a system that's all 2d6 to the point where you are ether playing battletech
the war game or battletech the rpg